Discourse & Society

http://das.sagepub.com/

'Do we really want to be like them?': Indexing Europeanness through

pronominal use
Jennifer Cramer
Discourse Society 2010 21: 619
DOI: 10.1177/0957926510381217

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://das.sagepub.com/content/21/6/619

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Discourse & Society can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://das.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://das.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://das.sagepub.com/content/21/6/619.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Oct 26, 2010

What is This?

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

Article

Discourse & Society

‘Do we really want to 21(6) 619–637

© The Author(s) 2010

be like them?’: Indexing Reprints and permission: sagepub.

co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0957926510381217
Europeanness through http://das.sagepub.com

pronominal use

Jennifer Cramer
University of Kentucky, USA

Abstract
This article is part of a larger project on language politics in the European Union (EU),
with an empirical focus on questions concerning identity. Using Wortham’s (1996) deictic
mapping technique, I examine how EU leaders position themselves with respect to a
European identity through the use of pronouns. Using this discourse analytic framework,
I show how, in a panel featuring leaders from current and prospective EU member states,
a participant from Turkey juxtaposes his various identity positions with those of other
panel members. The analysis focuses on short discourse fragments featuring discussions
about European identity. The analysis reveals three identities constructed through pronoun use:
neutral, non-European, and European. While leaders from current member states emphasize their
Europeanness through pronoun use, the Turkish panelist portrays an identity in opposition to this
European identity, thus exhibiting how the repetition of pronoun use patterns helps to create,
recreate, and make visible certain identities.

Keywords
deictic mapping, European Union, identity, indexicality, language politics, political discourse,
pronouns, Turkey, World Economic Forum

Introduction
This article is part of a larger project on language identity politics among EU member
states, specifically addressing the indexical effects of pronominal use as it pertains to the

Corresponding author:
Jennifer Cramer, University of Kentucky, Department of English, 1215 Patterson Office Tower, Lexington,
KY 40506-0027, USA.
Email: jennifer.cramer@uky.edu

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

620 Discourse & Society 21(6)

politics of European identity.1 The specific discourse analytic approach I use will
demonstrate how European Union (EU) political leaders index a European identity
within the context of a discussion about European identity through a strategic selection
of pronouns. These data further show the dynamicity of identity construction in real time.
Pronouns show how different identity alignments work in real time, giving them the
theoretical power to function as indexes of those identities. Each use of a pronoun con-
structs some part of the speaker’s identity; as these leaders discuss aspects of European
identity, they also perform aspects of the identities represented in their repertoire.
The examination of European identity assumes significance because Europeans
contest the definition of the concept. Eurobarometer surveys indicate that EU citizens
tend to identify first with their country, not with the EU (European Commission, 2004).
Over 10 years of Eurobarometer surveys, the numbers have maintained relative consis-
tency, indicating that there is no real shift toward ‘feeling more European’. In fact,
some discussions suggest that the expansion of the EU has led to greater feelings of
nationalism, even in very specific domains of language use, like in legal discourse
(Kjær and Palsbro, 2008).
The data for this article were taken from a 75-minute session on ‘Europe’s Purpose’ at
the 2008 meeting of the World Economic Forum (YouTube, 2008). I analyzed segments
devoted to the concept of a European identity. Thus, speakers can position themselves
with respect to a European identity through at least two methods: explicitly, in the con-
tent of the discussion, and implicitly, through strategic pronoun use. This study further
supports claims that through the differential use of pronouns, speakers create, recreate,
and make visible specific identities in real time.

Political discourse, identity, and pronouns

This section discusses the relevant literature on political discourse, identity construc-
tion, European identity, and the indexical and political uses of pronouns, serving as a
presentation of the theoretical framework used for data analysis.

Political discourse
A great deal of attention has been given to how language is used in political discourse.
One need only count the number of books, journal articles, and popular press critiques
concerning the speech of politicians to understand that ‘[p]olitics and language are
intimately intertwined’ (Chilton and Schäffner, 2002: vii). In a sense, the field of
Critical Discourse Analysis (e.g. Chouliaraki and Fairclough, 1999; Fairclough, 2003)
and the journal Discourse & Society, among other institutions, exist because of this
desire to understand how ‘language only gains power in the hands of the powerful’
(Wodak, 1989: xv).
Political discourse in Europe has been one of the most fruitful areas for this type of
research in recent years, a fact which is likely due to the unique nature of the European
Union and its political organization. Ruth Wodak, among others, has devoted a great deal
of attention to this area (e.g. Wodak, 1989, 2002, 2007; Wodak et al., 2009). In her work,
Wodak presents a clear understanding of how national and European identities emerge in

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

Cramer 621

political discourses, and how the organization of the EU contributes to such identity
alignments. To better understand identities, we turn now to theories on language use and
identity construction.

Identity construction
Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985) explain how identities emerge in linguistic per-
formance. Their analysis includes four constraints that guide the adoption of new
identities:

(i) we can identify the groups

(ii) we have both adequate access to the groups and the ability to analyse their behavioural
patterns
(iii) the motivation to join the groups is sufficiently powerful, and is either reinforced or
reversed by feedback from the groups
(iv) we have the ability to modify our behaviour. (Le Page and Tabouret-Keller, 1985: 182)

We can also understand these constraints in Agha’s (2005) terms: people recognize avail-
able register models, establish their footing with respect to these models, and align with
the voices indexed by certain micro-level features, like pronouns. Through the use of
these micro-level features, speakers create and index the identities they experience in
interaction.
For Bucholtz and Hall (2005), identity is seen as emergent, a construct that surfaces
within an interaction. As two speakers engage in discourse, each speaker situates him/
herself in a social relationship with people in the interaction. These identities are charac-
terized as dynamic, mutable, and malleable. The development of one’s identities is a
process, whereby the context defines the identity. Thus, identity construction is a social
process, not an individual one (Frogner, 1999).
The connection between identity and ethnicity or nationality (Extra and Yağmur,
2004) exemplifies this social process. In nation-building, an over-arching identity is con-
sidered a key component in creating unity amongst citizens. To this end, certain symbols
(i.e. flags, anthems) are created with which citizens are expected to identify. The process
whereby symbols are constructed and manipulated by political entities is seen as crucial
to the development of national identities (Martinello, 1995). Like these symbols, lan-
guage use can aid in the creation of a national identity, though as a more dynamic site for
such identity expression.

European identity
The idea that identity is part and parcel of the process of nation-building relates specifi-
cally to the notion of a European identity. The EU is a supranational organization that has
undergone processes that resemble nation-building: its members have designed a flag,
adopted an anthem, and created a single currency.2 Thus, the EU is more than a political
or economic entity; it must also deal with the challenges associated with defining a
European identity in the face of already established national ones. This struggle becomes

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

622 Discourse & Society 21(6)

visible when, for instance, news outlets use national stereotyping and other strategies to
relate information about EU policies to lay readers (Hardt-Mautner, 1995).
While the EU likely had goals other than identity creation when designing these sym-
bols, they still aid in establishing a sense of belonging among European citizens in the
project of Europe (Martinello, 1995). These concrete emblems provide a physical pres-
ence of identity, one that further adds to the EU’s status as an ‘imagined community’
(Anderson, 1991).
Some citizens perceive that there is a shared experience and a shared history that
binds Europeans (Martinello, 1995). One of the cultural constructs that binds the EU
nations has been argued to be the shared Christian religion (e.g. Altes, 1999; Frogner,
1999; Soares, 1999). If so, then the accession of Turkey, a predominantly Muslim nation,
presents a problem to the idea of shared religion. As accession is negotiated, Turkey must
show that it meets the requirements set out for membership and attempt to mesh its own
cultural practices with those of this preconceived Europe.

The indexical uses of pronouns

One way identity is marked linguistically is through the differential use of pronouns.
Despite the fact that the focus in linguistics had been strictly confined to the syntactic
properties of pronouns, thus ignoring the social (and indexical) nature of the forms
(Mühlhäusler and Harré, 1990), Brown and Gilman (1960) moved toward a sociolinguis-
tic account of their use, focusing on the co-variation between pronouns used and the
relationship between the speaker and the addressee.
Since Brown and Gilman, many researchers have examined the indexical nature of
pronouns and other deictics (e.g. Benveniste, 1971; Wortham, 1996; Terkourafi, 2005;
Davidson, 2007). Indexicality is concerned with the aspects of a person’s identity that are
not static but instead constructed through language use (Silverstein, 1976). Silverstein’s
notions of indexical presupposition and indexical creativity will aid in our understanding
of indexicality. Indexical presuppositions, as in the use of shifters as indexes, require
knowledge of the situation for their interpretation. One finds indexical creativity in the
use of pronouns to establish conversational roles like speaker and hearer, in particular
ways that index social hierarchies. Thus, indexes can be seen as being ‘on a sliding scale
of creativity or performative value from the extreme of presupposition displayed by deic-
tics to the extreme of creativity displayed by subtle social indexes’ (Silverstein, 1976:
35). Silverstein also explains how the indexical meaning of a form has two parts: the
pre-established context of the interaction, and the contextual factors that arise from the
interaction (Silverstein, 2003). Thus, a form used within a context creates the context.
An example of the indexicality of deictics can be seen in the work of Davidson (2007).
In the study, she shows how deictics can be indexical of part of a person’s identity. She
examines the use of adverbial deictics (here and now, then and there) among citizens of
former East Germany to show that these forms give away something about an individu-
al’s political position. She claims that East Germans show their attachment to socialism
through their positive association with here (East Germany) in times before the fall of
the Berlin Wall (then). East Germans also define themselves through their negative
associations with there (West Germany).

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

Cramer 623

Working from the notion of indexicality, Wortham (1996) developed a systematic

approach to the analysis of pronouns within a context. His goal was to present a tech-
nique for understanding the patterns of deictic use within an interaction. For Wortham,
deictics index pieces of the context and reveal the framework of the interaction.
Wortham’s framework serves as the framework of analysis for the current study. The
framework is represented by a chart that captures each instance of a deictic in the interac-
tion and its referent. An example taken from Wortham’s work can be seen in Table 1.
This type of table aids researchers in discovering patterns of deictic use in an interac-
tion. These patterns provide evidence for the explicit connection between pronoun use
and identity alignment. Line represents the line number from the transcription of the inter-
action within which a deictic was found; Speaker represents the person who uttered the
form; 1st Person, 2nd Person, and 3rd Person represent the type of pronoun used. For
each pronoun, we see a definition of the referent, based on the context of the interaction.
Without contextual information, it is impossible to determine anything about the dis-
course as a whole (e.g. Van Dijk, 2008, 2009). Thus, we cannot ignore or take for granted
the importance of context in understanding pronominal use. For example, in Table 1,
which was taken from Wortham’s work, the classroom setting is important for our under-
standing of the power dynamics of the interaction. Here, T/B is a female teacher, while
GAR, CAN, and IVR are students. T/S, who does not speak in this interaction but is the
target of some of the discussion, is a male teacher who jointly teaches this class with T/B.
We know, from ethnographic detail, that the two teachers do not always agree on how the
class should be conducted. In this interaction, Wortham claims that through strategic
pronoun use, T/B effectively excludes T/S, choosing instead to talk about him. In fact,
she uses the content of what she says, along with this pronoun use, to position herself as
aligned with the students against T/S. Without the ethnographic information and the
general context of the interaction, we could not have a full understanding of what the
deictic map shows.

Table 1.  Sample deictic map:  A partial rendering of Table 2 from Wortham (1996: 341)

Line Speaker 1st Person 2nd Person 3rd Person

420 T/B we-class you-students

428 T/B our-class you-students them-history
I-T/B books
444 T/B we-plotters you-students he-T/S
451 T/B us-class you-plotters he-Maurice
you-Gary it-text
his-Cicero
461 GAR his-man
464 CAN he-Maurice
466 T/B I-T/B it-T/S behavior
469 T/B you-Ivory it-text
475 IVR he-Cicero
it-plot
479 IVR he-Maurice
his-T/S

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

624 Discourse & Society 21(6)

Thus, as Wortham notes, the ‘systematic analysis of shifter use cannot suffice to
uncover interactional organization’ (Wortham, 1996: 344) because (a) verbal interaction
involves more than just deictic use and (b) deictic use does not always conform to our
expectations. Contextual information must be used in the analysis to understand what
identities are being indexed. The establishment of these patterns, and the cumulative
effect of the patterns, is what creates, recreates, and makes visible the identities expressed
by the speakers.

The political uses of pronouns

These patterns of pronominal use and their effects on the identity alignments made by
speakers are particularly important in political discourse. For instance, as Wilson (1990)
shows, politicians can use pronouns manipulatively for political effect. These effects
arise because of the fact that ‘pronouns shift and change depending on the way in which
they are textually employed’ (Wilson, 1990: 76). Specifically, Wilson points to an inclu-
sive and exclusive ‘we’ as a politician’s strategy for directing attention toward or away
from him or herself in certain contexts.
Another example of the examination of pronouns in political discourse is Anna De
Fina’s (1995) discussion of two Mexicans’ speech patterns discussing the Chiapas revolt.
Again, the point of interest is identity alignments; De Fina suggests that pronominal
references ‘help define the way a speaker presents himself as an agent in a particular
conflict and the way he relates to others’ (1995: 402).
Thus, it is clear that pronouns carry a great deal of power in their use. Politicians,
among others, have been shown to use pronouns in strategic ways for the purposes of
presenting a particular position or gaining a particular effect. Having addressed the rel-
evant literature, I now focus on the specific methodology used for analyzing pronominal
use in this study.

Methodology
The data for this study come from a session from the 2008 annual meeting of the World
Economic Forum, an independent, not-for-profit organization whose goal is to ‘improve
the state of the world’ (World Economic Forum, 2008). The annual meeting, held in
Davos, Switzerland, offers a chance for world leaders to discuss issues of global impor-
tance. The session was titled ‘Europe’s Purpose’. Leaders from across Europe gathered
to discuss issues concerning the progress of the EU, including the role of the EU in
international issues and Turkey’s accession into the EU, as well as European identity.
The panel was made up of the following European leaders: Jan Peter Balkenende,
Prime Minister of the Netherlands; Christine Lagarde, Minister of Economy, Finance
and Employment of France; Michael Oreskes, Editor-in-Chief, International Herald
Tribune, France; Hans-Gert Pöttering, President of the European Parliament, Brussels;
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Prime Minister of Denmark; and Ali Babacan, Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Turkey. The session was chaired by Josef Ackermann, Chairman of the
Management Board and the Group Executive Committee, Deutsche Bank, Germany, and

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

Cramer 625

Co-Chairman of the Foundation Board of the World Economic Forum. Additionally,

members of the audience were called upon to ask questions at the end of the session.
One piece of information that is important for the context of the analysis of linguistic
data in this article is the fact that the entire session was conducted in English. Therefore,
we must consider the relative fluency of the speakers. English is one of the most com-
monly used languages in the day-to-day workings of the EU (e.g. Berns, 1993; Pool,
1996). Given the leaders’ positions of power, it is likely that they engage in English con-
versation on a daily basis. Additionally, a cursory listen reveals near-native fluency for
all speakers across the session. Therefore, I assume that the participants speak English
at a near-native level, and the analysis of pronoun usage assumes these speakers use
pronouns much like native English speakers.3
For my analysis, I use the deictic mapping techniques developed by Wortham (1996)
as a framework for analyzing the use of pronouns in the transcript. In examining the data,
I searched for all English personal pronouns, possessives, and reflexives: I, me, my,
mine, myself, you, your, yours, yourself, he, him, his, himself, she, her, hers, herself, it,
its, itself, we, our, ours, ourselves, yourselves, they, them, their, theirs, and themselves.

Analysis of pronominal use

I begin by looking at the speech of the chairman of this session, Josef Ackermann.
Most of his contributions are those of a moderator; he takes questions, addresses them
to different members of the panel, and redirects to other members when one has com-
pleted a response. As such, his contributions are balanced and neutral, mostly referring
to the people on the stage. His first contribution to this interaction can be found in
Excerpt 1, in which Ackermann addresses Ali Babacan and the possible accession of
Turkey into the EU.

Excerpt 14

·
1 Ackermann: hh I think- I think it’s a very impo:rtant development. (.) Ali Babacan ·hh, (0.8)
2 you said in a spee:ch (0.5) about f-four or five years ago it’s not very important (.)
3 when you join the EU, it’s impo:rtant (.) that we continue: the accession process
4 it’s important (.) for domestic reasons but probably also ·hh (.) from an integration
5 point of view. ·hh do you think that eh in the last few years:, with all the
6 discussions we had in Europe about Turkish membership ·hh that- that this uh
7 (0.8) pressure somewhat has been redu:ced? W- would y- you like to- to activate
8 it again in- in a more (0.5) um active way?

Table 2 features the deictic map of Ackermann’s use of pronouns in Excerpt 1. Here, we
see that Ackermann establishes his role as a neutral moderator. As such, I argue that he
does little to promote/construct any type of European identity.
As one expects in this type of moderator–panelist interaction, Ackermann refers to
himself and his addressee with I and you, respectively. When he presents the topic of
Turkey’s possible accession into the European Union in line 3, he shifts the referent of

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

626 Discourse & Society 21(6)

Table 2.  Deictic map of Excerpt 1

Line Speaker 1st Person 2nd Person 3rd Person

1 Ackermann I – Ackermann it – previous point

(2)5 made in dialogue
2 Ackermann you – Babacan it – expletive subject
3 Ackermann we – Europe, you – Turkey it – expletive subject
Turkey
4 Ackermann it – expletive subject
5 Ackermann you – Babacan
6 Ackermann we – Europeans
7 Ackermann you – Babacan
8 Ackermann it – Turkish EU
membership process

you from Babacan to Turkey, thereby equating metonymically Babacan with the entire
Turkish nation. This instance of you could not refer to Babacan individually because an
individual does not join the EU, a country does. In line 5, Ackermann switches back to
using you as a reference for Babacan.
Also in line 3, Ackermann uses we to mean Turkey and the European Union. This is
clear from the context: Ackermann is talking about the accession process, which neces-
sarily requires dialogue between the current EU member states and the candidate country
Turkey. Having already indexed Babacan as Turkey through his use of you in this line,
Ackermann shifts to we to index the collaborative nature of accession. This inclusive we
is quite different from how most of the other speakers typically use we, as we will see in
the rest of the analysis. His use of we in line 6 is the more common usage in this tran-
script, where Ackermann excludes Turkey from the group defined by we. Here, we must
only include current EU members, as the pronoun is embedded in a clause where
Ackermann claims discussions were taking place about Turkey.
Once Ackermann has given the prompt, Babacan takes over in the discussion of the
possible accession of Turkey into the EU. It is important to note that he is the only rep-
resentative on the stage that does not represent a current EU member state. He has just
been asked by Ackermann about his thoughts on the accession of Turkey into the EU.
Babacan has intimate knowledge about the process because he serves as the negotiator of
this accession process for Turkey. Now, in front of several EU leaders, Babacan must
discuss a matter that has been greatly debated in Europe – whether Turkey should be
allowed to join the EU at all. As such, his words could impact on Turkey’s chances of
accession.
When we examine the deictic map for the entire 15-minute video clip, we see that
Babacan almost exclusively uses first-person plural pronouns and possessives to refer to
Turkey and the Turkish people. Most of the focus is on what Turkey has done and will do
to become an EU member state. But, at times, Babacan speaks as a frustrated negotiator,
one who views the EU accession process as a series of hoops through which Turkey must
jump. In Excerpt 2, we examine one case where Babacan expresses these sentiments.

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

Cramer 627

Excerpt 2

53 Babacan: it. but at the end of the road it is going to be a different Turkey. (0.4) looking at
54 how much we have done, how much we have changed during the last five years it
55 is not very difficult to (0.5) imagine or project what kind of a country we will see
56 in five, seven, ten years time. and then probably it will be an easier decision on
57 the EU side also, (0.2) and then at- at that point I don’t know if Tu:rkey will (.)
58 still be (.) willing to be in all the (0.2) uhh complex structures and the Brussels
59 and so forth (.) maybe (0.2) eh we will want to be independent in some areas,
60 (0.3) or who knows? maybe we will som- still find some value (0.2) at the end of
61 the road, but the important thing is (.) keeping the target over there as a firm target
62 as a full membership target and moving towards that target for (.) short to medium
63 term is the best strategy for Turkey and for the (.) European (.) Union as well
64 (0.4) because sometimes we see some trends (.) in some countries (.) and we
65 really question do we really want to be like them

Table 3 represents the deictic map of this section of the transcript. An us vs. them dichot-
omy is made visible through this mapping. In line 65, Babacan’s position against the EU
is made clear. While Babacan does make at least one shift in the referent of we in this
excerpt, his overall tendency is to exclude the EU from this delimited group. Therefore,
the identity indexed by Babacan could be characterized as non-European, in that he asso-
ciates almost exclusively with his identity as a Turk, deemphasizing any claim Turkish
people have to a European identity.
Babacan discusses how much Turkey has done to improve its situation. In line 55,
Babacan shifts the referent of we from Turkey, as he has spent a great deal of time dis-
cussing Turkey’s improvements, to an inclusive we that includes not only the other panel

Table 3.  Deictic map of Excerpt 2

Line Speaker 1st Person 2nd Person 3rd Person

53 Babacan it – the fact that approval is

required from all member states
it – Turkey
54 Babacan we – Turkey (2) it – expletive subject
55 Babacan we – panel, audience
56 Babacan it – decision about Turkey’s
accession
57 Babacan I – Babacan (as
representative Turk)
59 Babacan we – Turkey
60 Babacan we – Turkey
64 Babacan we – Turkey (2)
65 Babacan we – Turkey them – certain European
countries

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

628 Discourse & Society 21(6)

members but the audience as well. In fact, he is claiming that everyone will see how
advanced Turkey has become after working so long to meet the EU’s standards.
Babacan envisions that this prosperous Turkey will emerge within the next 10 years.
If this is achieved, Babacan claims that the accession decision should be easier for the
EU. In line 57, Babacan no longer speaks as the negotiator or as the current speaker. He
shifts the use of I to refer to himself as a representative Turk – one who thinks Turkey
will be unwilling to jump through more hoops if it indeed becomes so prosperous.
Seemingly, Babacan has been positioning Turkey in opposition to the EU all along in
his response, though he does not do so explicitly until line 65. After mentioning that
Turkey has recently witnessed some unfavorable trends in certain EU member states
(though he is not clear as to what these might be), he uses we to refer to Turkey and them
to refer to these certain EU member states (and, by extension, the whole EU). This serves
as a way of distancing Turkey from any unfavorable activities in the EU; just as the EU
wants Turkey to be at a certain level before it permits Turkey’s accession, Turkey wants
its move into the EU to be a positive one.
After Babacan finishes his discussion of Turkey’s accession into the EU, Ackermann
opens the floor to questions from the audience. The remainder of the transcript is devoted
to the first question, which was asked by audience member Nicholas Desantis. Excerpt 3
is the entire contribution of Desantis in this interaction.

Excerpt 3

  89 Desantis: Uh hello I am Nicholas Desantis I run a think tank (.) about um the research also
  90 about European identity. (1.0) ·hh and um um I’d be very interesting6 to- to hear
  91 we have obviously a very- a huge divide between (.) European politicians and the
  92 citizens understanding ·hh (0.2) the project of Europe (1.0) they might know their
  93 his- the history but (.) how do you see? (.) and I’d like to open to the panel (1.2)
·
  94 hh and then understand how Turkey sees that identity affecting once they come
  95 in, because I think they will. (0.4) ·hh in terms of uh how do we explain such a
  96 complex (0.2) concept? (0.2) ah and although we ha- all have Euros in our
  97 pockets (.) uh the meaning of that Euro and where it comes from it’s very difficult
  98 to try and sen- to try and have a sense of pride (0.4) about that currency in our
  99 pockets and I’ll like to know (.) and hear what you have to say about European
100 identity becoming more ·hh (0.2) uh easier to understand (0.2) let me put it this
101 way a bra:nd (.) about Europe.

Table 4 represents the deictic map of this section of the transcript. Shifts in indexicality
are evident, particularly in Desantis’s use of third-person pronouns. This shift changes
the category to which Desantis himself belongs.
Desantis wants to know if the panel believes a European identity is coming into fashion.
He iconically links the Euro with European identity. Desantis specifically asks to hear how
Babacan sees Turkey being affected by this identity (thereby making the difference between
Europe and Turkey salient).
Desantis begins his question in a typical fashion: he introduces himself and gives
some background information about the nature of his question. He quickly aligns himself
with the leaders on the stage – he mentions that he runs a think tank (thus he is highly

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

Cramer 629

Table 4.  Deictic map of Excerpt 3

Line Speaker 1st Person 2nd Person 3rd Person

  89 Desantis I – Desantis (2)

  90 Desantis I – Desantis
  91 Desantis we – European
politicians, citizens
  92 Desantis they – European citizens
their – European citizens
  93 Desantis I – Desantis you – Davos panel
  94 Desantis they – Turkey
  95 Desantis I – Desantis they – Turkey
we – Desantis, panel
  96 Desantis we – Europeans
our – Europeans
  97 Desantis it – Euro
it – expletive subject
  98 Desantis our – Europeans
  99 Desantis I – Desantis you – Davos panel
100 Desantis me – Desantis it – Desantis’ question

educated) and that he is interested in European identity (a topic likely of interest to

politicians). The most meaningful way in which he aligns with the politicians as opposed
to the citizens in this interaction is simply by referring to European citizens as they in
line 92. In so doing, Desantis positions himself as above other Europeans; because he
works in a think tank that researches European identity, Desantis suggests he has a better
understanding of the European project than the others.
Desantis also makes the distinction between Turkey and the European Union clear
with his use of we and they in lines 94–6. Here, even though Desantis expresses in the
context that he is in favor of Turkey’s accession into the EU (or he at least believes it is
inevitable), he refers to Turkey as they, which is in stark contrast to his use of they previ-
ously in line 92 to mean European citizens. He now shifts in his usage and refers to
Europeans as we, thus incorporating himself into that group.
After Desantis presents his question, Ackermann takes it upon himself to address
Desantis’ question first to Hans-Gert Pöttering. Additionally, Jan Peter Balkenende and
Anders Fogh Rasmussen are invited to answer. Interestingly, Babacan does not get an
opportunity to respond, despite the fact that Desantis specifically requested to hear Turkey’s
position on the matter. We will examine the answers given by these three men in sequence.
We begin by examining Pöttering’s response, a section of which can be found in Excerpt 4.

Excerpt 4

116 Pöttering: ·hh and I regret very much (1.0) that it was necessary and fortunately or
117 apparently necessary (0.2) to ta:ke (.) the sym:bols (.) out of the reform treaty.
118 (0.8) I am not criticizing Jan Peter Balkenende whom I (.) like very much with his
119 policy how he helped (.) to overcome this problem, ·hh (1.6) but taking out the
120 symbols, the hymn- hymnthem (0.2) and the flag (0.2) should never mean (0.2)

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

630 Discourse & Society 21(6)

121 that we give the symbols up and I appreciate that the new president of France had
122 not only the tri-colore but the European flag on his uh (.) official photo as well,
123 and you know what? (.) I suggested for the European parliament, (0.2) when all
124 this happened to take the symbols out, (0.2) I said let us (0.5) expect when we
125 have visitors (.) presidents of countries, (0.3) let’s have them when they come to
126 our red carpet in Strasbourg, (0.2) let’s play (.) the European anthem (.) and the
127 national one. (0.2) and so we did it (0.2)

Table 5 represents the deictic map of Excerpt 4. The interactional pattern for Pöttering
reveals that he focuses on his identity as European Parliament President for the purposes
of appearing more European, despite having to uphold treaty reforms that remove sym-
bols of European identity. His distancing from the idea of removal further emphasizes his
Europeanness.

Table 5.  Deictic map of Excerpt 4

Line Speaker 1st Person 2nd Person 3rd Person

116 Pöttering I – Pöttering (as it – expletive subject

current speaker)
118 Pöttering I – Pöttering (as his – Balkenende
current speaker) (2)
119 Pöttering he – Balkenende
121 Pöttering we – Europeans
I – Pöttering (as
President of the
European Parliament)
122 Pöttering his – French president
123 Pöttering I – Pöttering (as you – audience
President of the
European Parliament)
124 Pöttering I – Pöttering (as
President of the
European Parliament)
us – European
Parliament
we – European
Parliament
125 Pöttering let’s (= let us) – them – presidents of
European Parliament countries
they – presidents of
countries
126 Pöttering our – European
Parliament
let’s (= let us) –
European Parliament
127 Pöttering we – European it – playing EU and
Parliament national anthem

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

Cramer 631

The most salient aspect of Pöttering’s pronoun usage is his shifting in the referent for I.
In many cases, he simply uses I to refer to himself as the current speaker, as in utterances
like ‘… whom I like very much’ (line 118). But, when he begins his discussion about
removing the symbols (of European identity), such as the flag and the EU anthem, from
the reform treaty, his use of I shifts to refer to his identity as European Parliament
President in line 121. He uses this switch to indicate his power in the situation (i.e. he has
the ability to reintroduce the symbols at the European Parliament, for example).
Additionally, Pöttering criticizes Balkenende (lines 118–19) during the course of this
discussion because of his involvement in removing the symbols. This will lead to
Balkenende later defending his position during his response. What is interesting, how-
ever, is that even though Balkenende is on the stage, Pöttering does not speak directly to
him (by using you); instead, he refers to Balkenende in the third person, further distanc-
ing himself from Balkenende’s supposed position on the symbols while still respecting
Balkenende’s negative face (à la Brown and Levinson, 1987).
As noted above, when Balkenende is given the chance to respond, he does so by first
defending his position in relation to the EU symbols. After successfully defending his
position (as indicated by the audience’s applause), Balkenende uses most of his response
time to reify the symbols, values, and principles of the European Union. He does so by
using we to refer to all Europeans (himself included). To support his claim that values are
important, he begins to draw on his experience in the Netherlands by shifting his use of
we from Europeans to the Dutch (lines 161–2). Excerpt 5 includes this discussion.

Excerpt 5

158 Balkenende: that is (.) a feature (.) why we work together. (0.4) and it is true what you say we
159 have to talk more I think about values in Europe because usually we talk about
160 practical aspects. (.) we talk about the- the- the- the- our currency and economic
161 issues and they are important. (0.8) but also we need a moral reflection. and we
162 had our presidency we organized a conference about that question what do we
163 have in common? Europe ( ) values in Europe. and uh Hans-Gert made it very
164 clear I think that it’s also another dimension. because you need the reflectional
165 values to know what do we have in common?

Table 6 represents the deictic map of this section of the transcript. Though Balkenende
uses we to point to Europeans and the Netherlands alternately, he uses his experience in
the Netherlands to further exemplify his Europeanness.
In this excerpt, we see a reversal of Pöttering’s use of indexicals. When pointing to
Pöttering’s idea that more talk about values is needed, Balkenende uses you in line 158,
specifically addressing Pöttering on the stage, thus diminishing the distance Pöttering
had implied in his earlier response. Balkenende aligns with Pöttering, thereby producing
his European identity. However, at line 163, Balkenende switches his approach again and
uses Pöttering’s first name. While using his first name is more intimate than using his
whole name, his last name, or his title, Balkenende returns to the distancing strategy by
not addressing Pöttering directly.

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

632 Discourse & Society 21(6)

Table 6.  Deictic map of Excerpt 5

Line Speaker 1st Person 2nd Person 3rd Person

158 Balkenende we – Europeans (2) you – Pöttering it – the statement

159 Balkenende I – Balkenende (as
current speaker)
we – Europeans
160 Balkenende we – Europeans
our – Europeans
161 Balkenende we – Europeans they – economic
we – the Netherlands issues
162 Balkenende our – the Netherlands
we – the Netherlands
we – Europeans
163 Balkenende it – the point
164 Balkenende I – Balkenende (as you – generic it – expletive
current speaker) subject subject
165 Balkenende we – Europeans

Finally, we come to a discussion of Rasmussen’s response to Desantis’ question, part

of which can be found in Excerpt 6 below. Recall that Desantis pointed to the Euro as a
shared symbol of importance for a European identity. It is important to note that
Rasmussen may not have had Euros in his pockets, as Denmark has yet to join the
Eurozone. Possibly because of this fact, Rasmussen chooses to focus more on values
than on symbols, unlike the first two respondents. In fact, his response does not seem to
add much to the idea of a European identity, in that he claims all of the ‘European values
and principles’ are also universal values and principles.

Excerpt 6

178 Rasmussen: (.) gender equality. (.) I consider that (.) one of our basic (.) uh values. (.) and
179 thirdly, (0.4) um which is (.) a heritage from (.) the European age of
180 Enlightenment (0.4) a wide ranging (.) eh freedom of expression. (0.8) um and
181 (0.5) in Europe we distingish- eh distinguish clearly uh between religion and
182 politics. (0.2) I consider uh these uh principles and values very important (.) in

Table 7 represents the deictic map for this section of text. What is most interesting about
Rasmussen’s response is the mention of religion and politics in lines 181–2. This section
of text was supposed to focus on the three values and principles that he sees as important
for the European Union: respect for the individual, gender equality, and freedom of
expression. His mention of religion and politics, while possibly related to the discussion,
seems to be an off-handed remark, probably directed at Babacan. He uses we here, indi-
cating that the separation of religion and politics is valued by Europeans. While Turkey
is also a secular state, this statement seems to insinuate that Europeans believe religion
is the most important issue in the Turkish question. It is in this statement that we see the
exclusion of the Turks from we.7

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

Cramer 633

Table 7.  Deictic map of Excerpt 6

Line Speaker 1st Person 2nd Person 3rd Person

178 Rasmussen I – Rasmussen

(as current speaker)
our – Europeans
181 Rasmussen we – Europeans
182 Rasmussen I – Rasmussen
(as current speaker)

Rasmussen’s response is concise and focuses solely on the three values and principles he
deems important. Rasmussen uses we and our exclusively to refer to Europeans. His use
of I focuses on his role as current speaker and not on any of his other roles, such as his
role as Prime Minister of Denmark.

Discussion
In the analysis, we see several trends among the participants in this panel. Based on their
pronoun usage, we can treat these men as representatives of three different groups: neu-
tral, non-European, and European. Ackermann represents the neutral group. This neutral-
ity is with respect to a European identity. His role as moderator constrains his speech
patterns more so than the panel members. His speech contains mostly address pronouns
typical of interviews. In his interaction with Babacan, for instance, he uses you and I in a
way that indicates he is the moderator and Babacan is the panel member he is addressing.
Thus, his pronoun usage does not appear to reveal much about his identity as a European.
His pronoun usage more closely represents his assimilation to a moderator’s identity.
Babacan represents the non-European group. His pronoun usage indicates that he is
not there just to discuss Turkey as a prospective EU member state. He positions himself
as Turkish and not as European for the purposes of this panel, so as to accentuate the line
in the sand drawn by the EU officials who have made Turkey’s accession process rather
difficult. Babacan makes at least one clear us vs. them comment, further indexing his
identity as non-European. He consistently uses we to refer to Turks and focuses on the
process of accession as a difficult feat Turkey has to accomplish if they want to be one
of them. But it is clear from his negative description of the trends in some European
countries that Babacan currently does not associate with a European identity.
The other men (Desantis, Balkenende, Pöttering, and Rasmussen) can be categorized
as European. Even though they often draw on their other identities (as Prime Ministers,
for example), the most prominent identity indexed by their pronoun usage is of being
European. All four men use we to refer to Europeans on most occasions. They align
themselves not only with the symbols, values, and beliefs they discuss in the context, but
also with the people they are classifying as European. They claim to be ‘just like you’,
the average European watching, reading about, or listening to this conversation, through
their use of the inclusive we. They do not just want to talk about being European; they
actually do ‘being European’ through their use of these pronouns.

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

634 Discourse & Society 21(6)

Conclusions
In this article, I have shown that some leaders from the EU are able to do ‘being European’
while discussing the concept of a European identity. Their pronoun usage indicates that
they are European. The Turkish member of the panel, however, exhibits a seemingly
strict non-European identity, thus positioning himself in opposition to the European
identity and maintaining independence. It is through the differential use of pronouns that
these patterns become clear. By mapping out the deictics used, we can see how the inter-
actional patterns are established and how the speakers align themselves with particular
identities through their pronoun usage.8
The fact of the matter is that Turkey is not currently an EU member state. But this fact
need not necessarily keep Turkey from exerting a European identity. If we consider Le
Page and Tabouret-Keller’s (1985) notion of ‘acts of identity’, it is easy to see that Turkey
can identify the EU as the group it wishes to join, can gain access through, for instance,
the accession process, and can modify its own behavior so as to, in this case, use pro-
nouns to display this identity. However, perhaps Babacan in particular, and Turks in
general, do not have the strong motivation required by Le Page and Tabouret-Keller to
possess this European identity. The motivation seems to be reversed, rather than strength-
ened, by the feedback from the group of Europeans present on this panel.
Though the existence of a European identity is often debated, this study shows that the
presence of a European identity becomes salient in the pronominal usage of these speakers.
These data show that the situation is more complicated than a simple dichotomy of us vs.
them. A European identity is complex, but an analysis of pronoun usage can potentially
provide some insight into how that identity emerges. This study furthers our understanding
of how pronouns interactionally create, recreate, and make visible certain identities through
their repeated patterns of use.

Acknowledgements
This article was presented at ILLS 1: LOL (2009), University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign. Thank you to audience members for their insightful questions and com-
ments. Thank you to those who gave comments on earlier drafts: Abbas Benmamoun,
Rakesh Bhatt, Eyamba Bokamba, Doug Kibbee, Michèle Koven, Numa Markee, Marina
Terkourafi, Teun van Dijk, Erica Britt, Brahim Chakrani, Laura Felton Rosulek, Young
Sun Lee, Teruaki Muto, and one anonymous reviewer.

Notes
1. While there may be a difference between a ‘European identity’ and a ‘European Union
identity’, I use the term ‘European identity’ to refer to the identity being propagated in the EU
(Jansen, 1999).
2. Not all EU member states have adopted the Euro as the currency of their nation.
3. One reviewer commented that the fact that many of these speakers are using a language that
is not their mother tongue might serve as the basis for some future research. This type of
research could establish expected patterns of use among speakers of different languages,
presenting potential similarities and differences in pronoun use, also considering the impact

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

Cramer 635

of culture-specific patterns in these interactional contexts. These questions would aid in our
sociolinguistic understanding of pronouns in interaction.
4. In each excerpt, pronouns have been marked with boldfaced font.
5. When a pronoun is used more than once in a line with the same contextual referent, I have
indicated in the map the number of times the pronoun occurred, in parentheses.
6. This is not a typographical error. The speaker, in asking his question, produced this utterance.
This type of error is not completely unexpected, given the spontaneous nature of the question
and answer segment of the interaction.
7. Some EU leaders have expressed concern about Turkey being a Muslim nation. For
example, French President Nicolas Sarkozy stated, ‘We have a problem of integration of
Muslims that raises the issue of Islam in Europe. To say it is not a problem is to hide from
reality’ (Hakura, 2006).
8. In these brief conclusions, I do not wish to imply that the three groups presented here are in
any way static, clear-cut categories. I suggest that over the course of the entire interaction, the
participants shift in and out of these and other identities. The overall impression, however, is
that one would rarely, if ever, find the European Union members of the panel expressing a non-
European identity or, likewise, the Turkish member expressing an identity indicating a strong
alignment with Europeanness. See Wodak (2009) for more on the intersection of political
discourse, Europeanness, and multiple identities.

References
Agha, A. (2005) ‘Voice, Footing, Enregisterment’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15(1): 38–59.
Altes, E.K. (1999) ‘What is it? Why do we need it? Where do we find it?’, in T. Jansen (ed.)
Reflections on European Identity, pp. 51–6. Brussels: European Commission Forward Studies
Unit Working Paper.
Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities. London: Verso.
Benveniste, É. (1971) Problems in General Linguistics (trans. M.E. Meek). Miami Linguistics
Series no. 8. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.
Berns, M. (1993) ‘English in Europe: Language Pragmatics or Language Policy?’ Paper presented
at Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1992: Language,
Communication, and Social Meaning, Washington, DC.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brown, R. and Gilman, A. (1960) ‘The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity’, in T.A. Sebeok (ed.)
Style in Language, pp. 253–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2005) ‘Identity and Interaction: A Sociocultural Linguistic Approach’,
Discourse Studies 7(4/5): 585–614.
Chilton, P. and Schäffner, C. (eds) (2002) Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to
Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough, N. (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical
Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Davidson, D. (2007) ‘East Spaces in West Times: Deictic Reference and Political Self-Positioning
in a Post-Socialist East German Chronotope’, Language & Communication 27: 212–26.
De Fina, A. (1995) ‘Pronominal Choice, Identity, and Solidarity in Political Discourse’, Text 15: 379–410.
European Commission (2004) ‘Eurobarometer 62: Public Opinion in the European Union’, http://
ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb62/eb_62_en.pdf (accessed 31 October 2008).

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

636 Discourse & Society 21(6)

Extra, G. and Yağmur, K. (eds) (2004) Urban Multilingualism in Europe: Immigrant Minority
Languages at Home and School. Clevedon, OH: Multilingual Matters.
Fairclough, N. (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
Frogner, T. (1999) ‘European Identity – A Perspective From a Norwegian European, or a European
Norwegian’, in T. Jansen (ed.) Reflections on European Identity, pp. 73–6. Brussels: European
Commission Forward Studies Unit Working Paper.
Hakura, F. (2006) ‘Europe and Turkey: Sour Romance or Rugby Match?’, openDemocracy, http://
www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-turkey/turkey_europe_4088.jsp (accessed 31 October 2008).
Hardt-Mautner, G. (1995) ‘How Does One Become a Good European?: The British Press and
European Integration’, Discourse & Society 6: 177–205.
Jansen, T. (1999) ‘European Identity and/or the Identity of the European Union’, in T. Jansen
(ed.) Reflections on European Identity, pp. 27–36. Brussels: European Commission Forward
Studies Unit Working Paper.
Kjær, A.L. and Palsbro, L. (2008) ‘National Identity and Law in the Context of European
Integration: The Case of Denmark’, Discourse & Society 19: 599–627.
Le Page, R. and Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985) Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches to Language
and Ethnicity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Martinello, M. (1995) ‘European Citizenship, European Identity and Migrants: Towards the Post-
Nationalist State?’, in R. Miles and D. Thränhardt (eds) Migration and European Integration:
The Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion, pp. 37–52. London: Pinter.
Mühlhäusler, P. and Harré, R. (1990) Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social
and Personal Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Pool, J. (1996) ‘Optimal Language Regimes for the European Union’, International Journal of the
Sociology of Language 121: 159–79.
Schegloff, E. (2008) ‘Transcription Module’, www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/schegloff/
TranscriptionProject/index.html (accessed 31 October 2008).
Silverstein, M. (1976) ‘Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description’, in K. Basso and
H. Selby (eds) Meaning in Anthropology, pp. 11–55. Albuquerque, NM: University of New
Mexico Press.
Silverstein, M. (2003) ‘Indexical Order and the Dialectics of Sociolinguistic Life’, Language &
Communication 23: 193–229.
Soares, M. (1999) ‘European Identity and Political Experience’, in T. Jansen (ed.) Reflections on
European Identity, pp. 57–61. Brussels: European Commission Forward Studies Unit Working
Paper.
Terkourafi, M. (2005) ‘Identity and Semantic Change: Aspects of T/V Usage in Cyprus’, Journal
of Historical Pragmatics 6: 283–306.
Van Dijk, T. (2008) Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Van Dijk, T. (2009) Society and Discourse: How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, J. (1990) Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Wodak, R. (ed.) (1989) Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

Cramer 637

Wodak, R. (2002) ‘Fragmented Identities: Redefining and Recontextualizing National Identity’, in

P. Chilton and C. Schäffner (eds) Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political
Discourse, pp. 143–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wodak, R. (2007) ‘Discourses in European Union Organizations: Aspects of Access, Participation,
and Exclusion’, Text & Talk 27: 655–80.
Wodak, R. (2009) The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M. and Liebhart, K. (2009) The Discursive Construction of
National Identity, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
World Economic Forum (2008) ‘World Economic Forum – Home’, www.weforum.org/en/index.
htm (accessed 31 October 2008).
Wortham, S. (1996) ‘Mapping Participant Deictics: A Technique for Discovering Speakers’
Footing’, Journal of Pragmatics 25: 331–48.
YouTube (2008) ‘Davos 2008 Annual Meeting – Europe’s Purpose’, www.youtube.com/
watch?v=QXq34eiBbEQ (accessed 31 October 2008).

Transcription notation (modified from Schegloff, 2008)

hh Breathing, laughter, aspiration

·
hh Inhalation
(.) Short pause
(1.0) Pauses, marked to the nearest tenth of a second
: Lengthening
( ) Uncertainty on the part of the transcriber
((word)) Transcriber commentary
. Final intonation
, Continuing intonation
? Rising intonation
- Cut-off word, false start, stuttering
Word Stress or emphasis
[ ] Overlapping talk
= Continuous phrase, interrupted by overlapping talk

Jennifer Cramer is on the faculty in the Linguistics Program at the University of

Kentucky and is completing a PhD in linguistics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign. She received BA degrees in French and linguistics from the University of
Kentucky and an MA in linguistics from Purdue University. As a sociolinguist, her main
research interests include discourse analysis, language and identity, the sociolinguistics
of border identities, and southern American English.

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012