Constructing collectivity: ‘We’ across languages and contexts provides an examination of first-person plural reference (‘we’) and its functions, covering a range of languages (Bulgarian, Cha'palaa, Dutch, German, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Norf'k, Norwegian, and Polish) in different interactional and genre-specific contexts. The book contains fifteen chapters split into three sections.

Part I (Semantic and pragmatic perspectives on ‘we’) consists of five chapters. Scheibman shows that referential uses of we have distinct distributions in formal and informal interactions. Richard Jason Whitt analyzes ‘we’ in connection with perception verbs of sight and sound in written corpora. In the third chapter, Kaja Borthen and Gøril Thomasson argue in favor of a relevance-theoretic framework in the analysis of ‘we’. In the fourth chapter, Carla Bazzanella shows how the referential flexibility of ‘we’ leads not only to indeterminacy and ambiguity, but also to a range of pragmatic functions. In the last chapter, Peter Mühlhäusler focuses on the Norf'k language, drawing on spoken and written data collected during his 18 field visits.

Part II (Interactional perspectives on ‘we’) contains the next five chapters. Simeon Floyd examines the grammatical features of the first person non-singular pronoun as well as related collective-marking morphology in Cha'palla. In the next chapter, Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou discusses the overt occurrence of εμείς (‘we’) in Greek. Gonen Dori-Hacohen examines how anaxnu (‘we’) creates social groups both at micro- and macro-societal levels. Anna Duszak's chapter explores changing patterns in the use of Polish my (‘we’) in institutional contexts from a constructionist perspective on politeness and style. The last chapter by Amanda Bateman explores how four-year-old children use we during their morning playtime.

The next five chapters constitute Part III (Genre-specific perspectives on ‘we’.) Martina Temmerman shows that text producers employ ‘we’ both exclusively and inclusively when addressing their readers. Dimitra Vladimirou shows that ‘we’ is a preferred resource in Greek linguistics articles. In a similar vein, Irena Vassileva looks at the use of the first person non-singular in book reviews published in Bulgarian linguistics journals and, by comparison, in research articles. In the fourth chapter, Dorien Van De Mieroop focuses on the role of ‘we’ in the co-construction of identities by the interviewer and interviewee. The final chapter by Anita Fetzer shows how the referential indeterminacy of we can be exploited in monologic and dialogic political interviews and political speeches.

In summary, this book helps expand our knowledge of the interplay between the means that a language offers for collective self-reference and the social-pragmatic functions of ‘we’ in actual use. The book is of particular interest to researchers working on person deixis and reference, personal pronouns and collective identities. However, it should also appeal to linguists whose work lies at the interface between grammar and pragmatics, sociolinguistics, discourse and conversation analysis.