‘We Need to Ask Ourselves’: We, As A Marker of (Inter)Subjectivity in Academic Debate
This paper combines Langacker’s notion of intersubjectivity with research into the discursive purposes of the first-person plural to analyse the 2008 debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox Has Science Buried God? The analysis identifies several differences and similarities between the debate...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Sciendo
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2024-0022 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | This paper combines Langacker’s notion of intersubjectivity with research into the discursive purposes of the first-person plural to analyse the 2008 debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox Has Science Buried God? The analysis identifies several differences and similarities between the debaters. Both speakers navigate the objectivity – (inter)subjectivity continuum in similar ways. Both speakers also use we to create their unique discursive identities. Dawkins primarily uses we to refer to himself as a member of an atemporal or cross-generational scientific community. This use was often exclusive as part of his argument seemed to be that he was a scientist in a way that Lennox was not. In contrast, Lennox’s uses are primarily inclusive, placing himself, Dawkins, and all scientists as part of the human race and using the human predicament as his main argument. Although only one debate is examined here, this paper may serve as a model for conducting a larger-scale project. With the recent increased polarisation of society, this analysis of we and intersubjectivity within a debate over an often volatile topic could provide insight for improving dialogue. Thus, this study is also relevant to fields beyond linguistics. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2199-6059 |