Nosism

Nosism, from Latin nos 'we', is the practice of using the pronoun we to refer to oneself when expressing a personal opinion.[1][2]

Depending on the person using the nosism, different uses can be distinguished:

Royal we
Main article: Royal we

The royal we, or majestic plural (pluralis majestatis), is employed by a person of high office, such as a monarch, bishop, or pope.

Editorial we

The editorial we is a similar phenomenon, in which individual editorial columnists in newspaper or a similar commentators in other media refers to themselves as we when giving their opinion. Here, the writers cast themselves in the role of spokespersons: either for the media institution that employs them, or on behalf of the party or body of citizens who agree with the commentary.

Author's we

The author's we, or pluralis modestiae, is a practice referring to a generic third person as we (instead of 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" because 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 hard sciences, social sciences, humanities, and technical writing because it fails to distinguish between sole authorship and co-authorship.[3][4][5][6]

gollark: I don't think that sort of claim has held up very well in the past.
gollark: If I am interpreting this right, it's saying that under [some political system] people will just become unselfish in some way.
gollark: * true, actually, not meaningful
gollark: I don't think this is meaningful.
gollark: Your paragraph is quite long. Please hold on.

See also

References
  1. Oxford English Dictionary, Compact Edition, 1989, Page 1945
  2. "A.Word.A.Day – nosism". Retrieved 11 January 2008.
  3. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (4 ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 1994. p. 30. ISBN 1557982414.
  4. Blanpain, Kristin (2008). Academic Writing in the Humanities and Social Sciences: A Resource for Researchers. Leuven: Voorburg. p. 43.
  5. Wallwork, Adrian (2014). User Guides, Manuals, and Technical Writing: A Guide to Professional English. New York: Springer. p. 153.
  6. Goldbort, Robert (2006). Writing for Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. p. 18.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.