INSTITUTIONAL WE AND LEADER I: SOCIOPRAGMATIC FUNCTIONS OF FIRST-PERSON PRONOUNS IN POLITICAL VS. OFFICIAL DISCOURSE

The paper differentiates the sociopragmatic functions of first-person pronouns (“I/we”) across political speeches and official documents (decrees, addresses, resolutions) within a 2020–2024 corpus. In political oratory, “I” amplifies charismatic leadership and personal accountability, while “we” mobilizes collective action. In official prose, “we” typically marks institutional representation and often softens or distributes agency; subject ellipsis and impersonal constructions are especially frequent in Uzbek and French administrative styles. Inclusive “we” serves as a mobilizing rhetorical device, whereas exclusive “we” delineates decision-making groups; an ambiguous “we” can mitigate error and diffuse blame. Cross-linguistically, English favors explicit agency, Uzbek foregrounds collectivist framing and institutional voice, and French skews toward bureaucratic neutrality. The study underscores genre-driven recalibration of “I/we” and highlights translation needs to preserve inclusive/exclusive/ambiguous distinctions.