‘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!
|
| _version_ | 1832593592034525184 |
|---|---|
| author | Barczewska Shala |
| author_facet | Barczewska Shala |
| author_sort | Barczewska Shala |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-110c7efe755d4c60ae8bf98396629194 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2199-6059 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
| publisher | Sciendo |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric |
| spelling | doaj-art-110c7efe755d4c60ae8bf983966291942025-01-20T11:10:12ZengSciendoStudies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric2199-60592024-12-0169118321110.2478/slgr-2024-0022‘We Need to Ask Ourselves’: We, As A Marker of (Inter)Subjectivity in Academic DebateBarczewska Shala0Uniwersytet Jana Kochanowskiego w Kielcach Kielce, Kielce, PolandThis 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.https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2024-0022first-person pluraldebate(inter)subjectivitycognitive linguistics |
| spellingShingle | Barczewska Shala ‘We Need to Ask Ourselves’: We, As A Marker of (Inter)Subjectivity in Academic Debate Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric first-person plural debate (inter)subjectivity cognitive linguistics |
| title | ‘We Need to Ask Ourselves’: We, As A Marker of (Inter)Subjectivity in Academic Debate |
| title_full | ‘We Need to Ask Ourselves’: We, As A Marker of (Inter)Subjectivity in Academic Debate |
| title_fullStr | ‘We Need to Ask Ourselves’: We, As A Marker of (Inter)Subjectivity in Academic Debate |
| title_full_unstemmed | ‘We Need to Ask Ourselves’: We, As A Marker of (Inter)Subjectivity in Academic Debate |
| title_short | ‘We Need to Ask Ourselves’: We, As A Marker of (Inter)Subjectivity in Academic Debate |
| title_sort | we need to ask ourselves we as a marker of inter subjectivity in academic debate |
| topic | first-person plural debate (inter)subjectivity cognitive linguistics |
| url | https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2024-0022 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT barczewskashala weneedtoaskourselvesweasamarkerofintersubjectivityinacademicdebate |