Community hub
0 subscribers7 pages, 0 posts
Recent from talks
All channels
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Welcome to the community hub built to collect knowledge and have discussions related to Nosism.
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Nosism
View on Wikipediafrom Wikipedia
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (May 2021) |
Look up nosism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Nosism (from Latin nos 'we') is the practice of using the plural pronoun we to refer to a singular subject, particularly when expressing one's personal opinion.[1][2]
Depending on the person using the nosism, different uses can be distinguished:
Types
[edit]The royal we or pluralis majestatis
[edit]The royal we (pluralis majestatis) refers to a single person holding a high office, such as a monarch, bishop, or pope.
The editorial we
[edit]The editorial we is a similar phenomenon, in which an editorial columnist in a newspaper or a similar commentator in another medium uses we when giving their opinion. Here, the writer is self-cast in the role of a spokesperson: either for the media institution that employs them, or more generally on behalf of the party or body of citizens who agree with the commentary.
The author's we or pluralis modestiae
[edit]Similar to the editorial we, pluralis modestiae is the practice common in mathematical and scientific literature of referring to a generic third person by we (instead of the more common one or the informal you):
- "By adding four and five, we obtain nine."
- "We are thus led also to a definition of time in physics."—Albert Einstein
We in this sense often refers to "the reader and the author", since the author often assumes that the reader knows and agrees with certain principles or previous theorems for the sake of brevity (or, if not, the reader is prompted to look them up).
This practice is discouraged in the natural and formal sciences, social sciences, humanities, and technical writing because it fails to distinguish between sole authorship and co-authorship.[3][4][5][6]
The patronizing we
[edit]The patronizing we (also known as the kindergarten or preschool we) is sometimes used in addressing instead of you, suggesting that the addressee is not alone in their situation such as "We won't lose our mittens today." This usage can carry condescending, ironic, praising, or other connotations, depending on intonation.[7]
The hospital we
[edit]This is sometimes employed by healthcare workers when addressing their patients; for example, "How are we feeling today?"[8]
The non-confrontative we
[edit]The non-confrontative we is used in T–V languages such as Spanish where the phrase ¿Cómo estamos? (literally, 'How are we?') is sometimes used to avoid both over-familiarity and under-formality among near-peer acquaintances. In Spanish, the indicative we form is also often used instead of the imperative for giving instructions, such as in recipes: batimos las claras a punto de nieve ('we beat the egg whites until stiff').
In English slang, we can be used to rhetorically confront a situation; by using it, the speaker can evoke a sense of experiencing the situation together with the potential listener while avoiding the paradox of addressing the non-addressable (such as an unlucky occurrence) with you.[citation needed]
References
[edit]- ^ Oxford English Dictionary, Compact Edition, 1989, p. 1945
- ^ "A.Word.A.Day – nosism". Wordsmith.org. Retrieved 11 January 2008.
- ^ Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (4 ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 1994. p. 30. ISBN 1557982414.
- ^ Blanpain, Kristin (2008). Academic Writing in the Humanities and Social Sciences: A Resource for Researchers. Leuven: Voorburg. p. 43.
- ^ Wallwork, Adrian (2014). User Guides, Manuals, and Technical Writing: A Guide to Professional English. New York: Springer. p. 153.
- ^ Goldbort, Robert (2006). Writing for Science. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. p. 18.
- ^ "The Grammarphobia Blog: Turning up our nosism". 4 July 2011.
- ^ "The Grammarphobia Blog: Turning up our nosism". 4 July 2011.
Nosism
View on Grokipediafrom Grokipedia
Definition and Etymology
Core Definition
Nosism denotes the rhetorical or stylistic practice in which a single speaker or writer employs the first-person plural pronoun "we" (or equivalent in other languages) in lieu of the singular "I" to refer to themselves.[1][2] This usage contrasts with standard grammatical convention, where "we" typically indicates a group, and serves functions ranging from assertions of authority to expressions of modesty or inclusivity.[5][4] The term originates from the Latin nōs, the first-person plural pronoun meaning "we," combined with the suffix -ism to denote a practice or tendency, with earliest recorded attestations in English dating to 1819.[3][4] Historically, nosism has been associated with archaic senses of collective pride or self-centeredness among groups, akin to egotism but pluralized; however, its primary contemporary application in linguistic analysis pertains to individual pronoun substitution.[1][3] Examples include monarchs invoking the "royal we" to evoke divine or institutional plurality, as in Queen Victoria's reputed declaration "We are not amused," or editors adopting the "editorial we" to imply judicious restraint rather than personal opinion.[2][4] Such substitutions can convey psychological distance, rhetorical emphasis, or cultural norms of deference, though overuse has drawn criticism for perceived affectation or evasion of direct accountability.[5]Etymological Origins
The term nosism is formed from the Latin first-person plural pronoun nōs ("we" or "us"), affixed with the English suffix -ism, which indicates a doctrine, practice, or distinctive feature, deliberately patterned after egotism to denote a collective counterpart.[3][6] This morphological construction emphasizes the plural self-reference inherent in the root, distinguishing it from singular-focused terms like egotism.[7] The Oxford English Dictionary records the earliest attestation of nosism in English from 1819, where it denoted a group's self-centered attitude or conceit, analogous to individual egotism, though this sense remained rare until the twentieth century.[3] By the early nineteenth century, the word appeared in contexts critiquing collective vanity, such as in literary or philosophical discussions of social dynamics.[2] In linguistic evolution, nosism later broadened to describe the rhetorical or pragmatic use of "we" for a singular speaker, reflecting its etymological roots in plural pronoun substitution; this extension aligns with analogous terms like illeism (from Latin ille, "he"), coined by Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1809 for third-person self-reference.[8] The term's adoption in English linguistics underscores a pattern of neologisms drawing from classical pronouns to categorize pronoun anomalies, without evidence of direct borrowing from other languages' vocabularies for similar phenomena.[3]Historical Context
Ancient and Pre-Modern Usage
In ancient Rome, government officials employed pluralis maiestatis, the use of plural pronouns to refer to a singular authority figure, in official documents to convey prestige and collective representation. This practice is documented in Latin grammar traditions, distinguishing it from mere grammatical plurality.[9] Byzantine (East-Roman) emperors later restored this Roman convention in their edicts, treating it as a native imperial tool rather than a borrowing from Hellenistic customs, as evidenced in juristic papyrology analyses of late antique legal texts.[10] In China, while not strictly plural, Qin Shi Huangdi (r. 221–210 BCE) monopolized the first-person pronoun zhèn—previously a general singular "I"—reserving it exclusively for the emperor to emphasize supreme, quasi-divine singularity, functioning analogously to majestic self-reference in imperial decrees.[11] During the medieval period in Europe, nosism gained traction among ecclesiastical and secular elites. The papal chancery adopted plural pronouns in Latin documents to signify the pope's representation of the universal Church, influencing secular rulers. This spread to England around 1190 via William Longchamp, chancellor under Richard I, who mirrored Apostolic precedents in royal correspondence.[12] Earlier, King Henry II (r. 1154–1189) used "we" in charters from 1169 onward to invoke dual personal and divine sovereignty.[13] Instances of individual "we" for "I" also appear in early Old English texts, such as legal and narrative works from the 8th–10th centuries, predating formalized royal adoption.[2] Pre-modern nosism extended to other pragmatic forms, like authors or officials using "we" for modesty or institutional voice, as in 16th–18th-century European treatises where scholars referred to themselves plurally to imply collaborative authority without explicit royalty. Evidence from diplomatic and literary sources confirms its role in elevating singular agency without claiming polytheistic multiplicity.[2]Emergence in English and Other Languages
The practice of nosism, particularly in the form of pluralis majestatis or the royal "we," entered English usage in the late 12th century, initially among monarchs to evoke authority and divine sanction. Historical accounts credit King Henry II with its earliest documented application around 1169, where he employed "we" to denote his actions in concert with God, as in charters implying a collective sovereignty.[14] [15] This convention gained traction under subsequent rulers, such as Richard I (r. 1189–1199), who extended it in official proclamations, solidifying its role in royal rhetoric by the 13th century; by the 19th century, it permeated broader elite discourse, exemplified by Queen Victoria's famous 1840s quip, "We are not amused."[16] In continental European languages, nosism predates its English adoption, tracing to Latin pluralis maiestatis employed by Roman emperors from the 4th century AD onward, as analyzed in linguistic studies of imperial correspondence.[17] French monarchs integrated it by the medieval period, with nous royal formalized in royal edicts; Napoleon Bonaparte notably revived and popularized the phrase nous royal in early 19th-century decrees to assert imperial unity.[18] Similar patterns emerged in German and Spanish royal chancelleries by the 14th–15th centuries, influenced by Latin precedents, where singular rulers used plural pronouns to symbolize courtly or divine plurality—though scholarly consensus holds this as a post-classical rhetorical device absent in ancient Semitic or Hellenistic texts, contra some biblical interpretations.[19] Beyond majestic variants, modest or editorial nosism surfaced in English print media around the 18th century, with periodicals like The Spectator (1711–1712) adopting "we" for collective editorial voice, evolving into standard journalistic practice by the 19th century.[2] Comparable developments occurred in French and German essayistic traditions, where authors used plural forms for humility or institutional representation, distinct from royal assertion but sharing the singular-to-plural referential shift.Varieties and Functions
Pluralis Majestatis
Pluralis majestatis, also termed the royal "we" or majestic plural, constitutes a deliberate nosistic convention whereby a singular figure of supreme authority—typically a monarch, pope, or high dignitary—substitutes plural first-person pronouns for the singular to evoke grandeur, sovereignty, and the embodiment of institutional or divine power.[14] This practice leverages plural forms to imply that the speaker acts not merely as an individual but as the collective voice of realm, church, or divine mandate, distinguishing it from other nosistic variants by its explicit intent to amplify hierarchical prestige rather than modesty or inclusivity.[17] Linguistically, it manifests through plural pronouns (e.g., "we" for "I") paired with singular-leaning modifiers or verbs in some constructions, as observed in historical texts where the form underscores intensity or respect without implying multiplicity of persons.[20] The convention's documented origins appear in medieval Latin rhetoric and European royal correspondence, with adoption in vernacular languages by the 12th century; in English, King Henry II (reigned 1154–1189) pioneered its use to align personal decrees with godly authority, followed by Richard I (reigned 1189–1199) in assertions of divine-right kingship.[14] French monarchs like Louis XIV (reigned 1643–1715) popularized it further, employing "nous" in edicts to project absolutist majesty, a style borrowed into English as "royal we" via Napoleonic-era French terminology around 1800.[18] Papal usage emerged concurrently in Latin documents, with popes invoking plural forms in bulls and encyclicals to represent the apostolic see's perpetual office rather than personal viewpoint, as in formal addresses from the 4th century onward among Roman imperial influences that predated full monarchical adoption.[17] [9] Illustrative cases abound in monarchical annals: Queen Victoria (reigned 1837–1901) allegedly quipped "We are not amused" at a courtier's jest, though the anecdote's authenticity remains unverified; regardless, it exemplifies the form's cultural resonance in Victorian-era discourse.[14] [20] Earlier, English kings like Edward I (reigned 1272–1307) integrated it into parliamentary writs to formalize royal commands as state imperatives.[14] In non-European contexts, analogous structures appear in ancient Near Eastern inscriptions, but verifiable pluralis majestatis as a self-referential honorific is absent prior to Hellenistic and Roman precedents, where emperors from the 4th century AD employed plurals to denote imperial dignity.[9] Cross-linguistically, it parallels honorific plurals in languages like Spanish (used by Francisco Franco) or Russian (imperial decrees), though always tied to autocratic signaling.[17] By the 20th century, pluralis majestatis waned amid egalitarian shifts and constitutional monarchies, with figures like Queen Elizabeth II (reigned 1952–2022) favoring singular pronouns in speeches to foster relatability, rendering the form archaic outside ceremonial or satirical contexts.[14] Its persistence in papal encyclicals, such as those post-Vatican II, reflects institutional continuity rather than personal aggrandizement, yet even here, informal addresses revert to singular for accessibility.[17] Critics, including linguists, note its potential to obscure individual agency behind collective veneer, contributing to debates on accountability in hierarchical speech, though empirically, it served pragmatic functions in pre-modern governance by reinforcing legitimacy without empirical evidence of psychological manipulation.[19] Modern appropriations, such as condescending parental "we" (e.g., "We don't do that"), dilute its original majesty, transforming it into a marker of assumed superiority rather than sovereign right.[14]Pluralis Modestiae and Editorial We
The pluralis modestiae, also termed pluralis auctoris, denotes the stylistic convention wherein a solitary author substitutes the first-person plural pronoun "we" for "I" to reference their own actions, findings, or opinions, primarily to evoke modesty, collegiality, or alignment with scholarly norms rather than personal aggrandizement.[21][22] This form of nosism traces its roots to Latin rhetorical practices, where nos supplanted ego to modulate interpersonal distance and temper direct self-assertion, a habit persisting in modern academic prose across Romance and Slavic languages.[21][23] In empirical linguistic corpora, pluralis modestiae appears frequently in single-authored journal articles, with usage rates varying by discipline and cultural context; for instance, Slovak scholarly texts routinely deploy "we" for singular authorship as a marker of decorum, while English-language humanities papers exhibit it to foster perceived objectivity.[22][24] Critics note that this substitution can obscure individual accountability, blending authorial intent with an implied communal endorsement, though proponents argue it mitigates the perceived arrogance of singular self-reference in formal discourse.[6] Distinct from pluralis modestiae, the editorial "we" constitutes a nosistic device employed by periodicals, broadcasters, or institutional voices to embody the unified perspective of an editorial collective, thereby distancing commentary from any lone contributor's bias.[25][26] Originating in 18th-century British journalism—such as The Spectator's essays by Joseph Addison and Richard Steele—this plural form imparts institutional gravitas, as seen in phrases like "We hold these truths" in unsigned leader columns, signaling consensus over idiosyncrasy.[25] In practice, it functions analogously to corporate speech, where the pronoun aggregates editorial board views, though analyses of deception linguistics highlight its potential to mask divergent internal opinions under a veneer of solidarity.[27][28]Patronizing and Therapeutic Nosism
Patronizing nosism, also termed the "patronizing we" or "kindergarten we," involves the use of the first-person plural pronoun "we" by a speaker in authority to address a subordinate or dependent individual, effectively substituting for the second-person "you" while implying shared experience or responsibility. This usage conveys a superficial inclusion that masks directives or observations directed solely at the addressee, often carrying a condescending tone by positioning the speaker as a guiding figure. For instance, a physician might inquire, "How are we feeling today?" to a patient, or a manager might state, "We need to meet our targets," implying the employee's shortcomings.[6][29] Such expressions emerged in contexts of asymmetrical power dynamics, including medical consultations, parental interactions with children, and supervisory roles in workplaces or education. Linguistic analyses describe it as a pseudo-inclusive strategy that softens commands or critiques, fostering compliance through feigned solidarity rather than genuine mutuality. Critics note its potential to undermine the addressee's autonomy, as the implied "we" excludes the speaker from actual accountability while infantilizing the other. Historical examples trace back to 19th-century medical discourse, where doctors adopted it to reassure patients amid limited treatments, though modern usage persists despite awareness of its patronizing effect.[30][31] Therapeutic nosism overlaps with the patronizing variant but applies specifically in clinical or counseling settings, where "we" aims to build empathy and rapport by framing the patient's experience as shared. Therapists or caregivers might say, "We're working through this together," to normalize struggles and encourage openness, drawing on principles of alliance-building in psychotherapy. Research in clinical linguistics highlights its role in reducing perceived hierarchy, yet empirical studies reveal mixed outcomes: while some patients report feeling supported, others perceive it as diminishing their agency, akin to paternalism. This form gained prominence in mid-20th-century psychoanalysis and behavioral therapies, with usage documented in patient interaction transcripts from the 1950s onward, though guidelines from bodies like the American Psychological Association caution against overuse to avoid alienating clients.[29][32] Distinctions between patronizing and therapeutic intents hinge on context and delivery; the former often prioritizes control, as in hierarchical institutions, while the latter seeks mutual engagement, per pragmatic linguistic frameworks. Cross-cultural parallels exist, such as in Finnish "patronizing we" constructions mirroring T-V distinctions in politeness systems. Both variants underscore nosism's function in modulating social distance, but overuse risks eroding trust, with surveys of healthcare recipients indicating preferences for direct "you" address in 62% of cases to maintain clarity and respect.Other Pragmatic Variants
In political rhetoric, nosism functions pragmatically to merge the speaker's individual agency with institutional or national identity, thereby legitimizing unilateral decisions through implied consensus. This variant extends beyond traditional pluralis majestatis by emphasizing rhetorical solidarity rather than inherent sovereignty; for example, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher reportedly used "we" in addresses to evoke governmental resolve, as in references to policy actions undertaken "on behalf of the nation."[30] Such usage, observed sporadically since the 20th century, mitigates perceptions of autocracy by framing personal stances as collective imperatives, though it risks diluting individual accountability.[2] A further pragmatic application occurs in advisory or service-oriented interactions, where nosism softens imperatives and promotes collaboration without literal inclusion. Professionals such as physicians or tradespeople may deploy a "modest we" to address clients indirectly, e.g., "How are we doing today?" or "Shall we examine the issue?"—referring to the interlocutor's state or actions. This dates to at least mid-20th-century English usage in caregiving contexts and serves to reduce face-threatening impositions, enhancing compliance through perceived partnership, though it can veer into condescension if overextended.[6][33] Literary nosism offers another pragmatic layer, enabling authors to stylize singular narratives with plural detachment for ironic, humorous, or universalizing effects. In Spike Milligan's 1971 memoir Adolf Hitler: My Part in His Downfall, the first-person account shifts to "we" for personal wartime anecdotes, pragmatically diffusing trauma and amplifying absurdity through self-distancing. Similarly, poetic applications since the early 20th century allow singular voices to imply multiplicity, fostering reader empathy without explicit inclusion, as a rhetorical device for emotional resonance in confessional genres.[6][34]Linguistic Analysis
Syntactic and Semantic Features
Nosism syntactically manifests as the substitution of first-person plural (1PL) pronouns—such as "we," "us," and "our"—for their singular counterparts ("I," "me," "my") in utterances by a single speaker, accompanied by plural agreement on verbs and auxiliaries.[35] This structure preserves standard 1PL syntactic distribution, including subject-verb agreement (e.g., "We decree" rather than "I decree"), but deviates from canonical number matching between pronoun and referent, treating the singular ego as a plural entity for grammatical purposes.[36] In languages with rich inflectional morphology, such as Magahi, nosistic forms may interact with honorific features, triggering plural marking on verbs without altering core argument structure.[37] Semantically, nosism reinterprets the 1PL pronoun's default collective denotation—typically inclusive or exclusive of multiple individuals—as a singular reference enriched with pragmatic implicatures of authority, intensification, or institutional representation.[35] The royal "we," for instance, evokes a "plural of majesty" (pluralis majestatis), where the speaker's singular identity absorbs a metaphorical plurality symbolizing power or divine endorsement, as in historical English usage by monarchs like Queen Victoria's "We are not amused" (1884).[28] This semantic shift relies on contextual inference rather than lexical ambiguity, allowing the form to convey exclusivity (speaker-only reference) while syntactically signaling multiplicity, distinct from true plurals that entail multiple distinct referents.[36] In pragmatic terms, nosism's semantic features often function as a grammatical metaphor, mapping singular agency onto plural form to assert hierarchy without explicit lexical content, as analyzed in speaker-exclusive variants like the editorial or majestic "we."[28] Cross-linguistically, similar patterns in honorific systems (e.g., Thai or Persian) demonstrate that nosism's semantics prioritize deference or elevation over literal plurality, with syntactic pluralization serving as a conventionalized marker of status rather than numerical fact.[38] Empirical studies of pronoun usage confirm that such forms reduce perceived individual accountability by diffusing agency across an implied collective, though this effect hinges on audience recognition of the convention.[39]Cross-Linguistic Comparisons
In Latin, the term pluralis maiestatis itself originated to describe the practice of singular rulers using the first-person plural pronoun nos in official communications, a convention adopted by Roman emperors from the 1st century CE onward to assert authority, as seen in inscriptions and edicts such as those of Augustus.[17] This usage paralleled the editorial or modest we (pluralis modestiae), employed by figures like Cicero in philosophical texts to denote collective scholarly voice rather than literal plurality.[40] Similar majestic forms persisted in Romance languages; French monarchs, including Louis XIV (r. 1643–1715), routinely issued proclamations beginning with Nous, Louis..., extending nosism to administrative and legal rhetoric until the 19th century.[41] Spanish royalty exhibited analogous patterns, though less rigidly formalized, with nosotros occasionally substituting for singular reference in royal decrees prior to the 20th century, diverging from the stricter singular formality in modern Iberian usage.[41] Germanic languages mirrored these conventions, with Pluralis Majestatis designating the royal wir in imperial contexts, as employed by Holy Roman Emperors and persisting in ceremonial language until the early 20th century, though grammatical integration posed no unique challenges beyond standard plural agreement. In Hebrew, nosism appears as a pluralis majestatis primarily in nouns denoting excellence or intensity, such as ʾĕlōhīm (lit. "gods") for the singular divine referent in biblical texts from circa 1000–200 BCE, with rarer pronominal extensions in royal or prophetic speech to amplify grandeur rather than multiplicity. This semantic intensification contrasts with Indo-European syntactic plurality, emphasizing abstract majesty over literal collectivity.[42] Beyond Indo-European families, equivalents diverge markedly. Korean historical royalty avoided plural pronouns, opting instead for exclusive singular forms like gwain (寡人, "this insignificant one") or jim (朕), reserved for kings from the Joseon dynasty (1392–1910) to humble yet distinguish the speaker without numerical inflation.[43] Japanese imperial usage similarly favored unique singular pronouns, such as chin (朕) by the Emperor until 1945, eschewing plural nosism in favor of lexical honorifics tied to Shinto cosmology, reflecting cultural preferences for indirect hierarchy over explicit plurality.[44] These variants highlight a cross-linguistic spectrum: European nosism often leverages syntactic plurality for authority or modesty, while East Asian traditions prioritize specialized morphology, reducing reliance on number for pragmatic effect. In Semitic contexts, such as Classical Arabic, divine "we" (nahnu) in Quranic verses (compiled circa 632–650 CE) has been interpreted by some scholars as majestic plural analogous to Hebrew, though debates persist over whether it connotes royal deliberation or textual plurality.[45]| Language Family | Example Form | Primary Function | Historical Peak |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indo-European (Latin/French/German) | Nos / Nous / Wir | Majesty in decrees; modesty in authorship | Roman Empire to 19th century |
| Semitic (Hebrew) | ʾĕlōhīm (nominal plural) | Excellence/intensity for divine/single referent | Biblical era (c. 1000 BCE) |
| Koreanic | Gwain / Jim (singular exclusives) | Royal humility/distinction | Joseon dynasty (1392–1910) |
| Japonic | Chin (singular imperial) | Hierarchical address | Pre-WWII era (until 1945) |