Hi Magnuslin,

Yes, I think you’re spot on with your final analysis. It really depends on what level we are looking at a particular text, as we could say an article, paragraph or sentence is in a particular perspective and this might vary across a text. So as you correctly say, the early part of the article may be in first person but then it adopts a more second person style – if we look at the paragraphs or sentences individually then we might draw different conclusions to the perspective. However, as you correctly say, the article itself is in the first person because we have evidence of first person pronouns, so even if large parts do not contain first person text it is framed from a particular perspective. On the whole, it is a first person article, though the bulk of it may be presented in second person, and indeed generally if there are any first person pronouns in a text then we could indeed describe it as first person.

In practice, you may find attitudes to perspective vary more than this, though, as sometimes second or third person texts might have first person introductions or very occasional first person ‘thoughts’, which the author might consider don’t constitute a first person text overall. Examples that spring to mind are academic texts, where for the most part writers are encouraged to include no first person pronouns or personal thoughts (for a neutral, third person perspective), but some might occasionally slip in. Also in fiction, particularly classical fiction, you may find a fashion for introducing a story from a certain perspective before the story is then told in a fully third person account (for example) – such was popular with ‘found footage’ style stories, such as where a first person narrator says they discovered the following information in a certain way (e.g. uncovered a mysterious book) and then goes on to tell a story that otherwise doesn’t involve the narrator at all. In such cases, the framing is first person but the text itself isn’t really.

Phil

Or, is it a case where the first part of your article is written in the First Person, but beginning from “First person perspective uses the pronouns I / me / mine (singular) and we / our / ours (plural). In fiction this is presented in ….”, the article is written by you in the Second Person, since the article is addressed to me, the reader?

Or finally, would it instead be accurate to say that while parts of your article are written by you in First Person, and the rest in Second Person, when considering the article collectively as one piece of writing, it is still considered as a First Person article, simply because it is written by you (the author) and sharing your view/thoughts? If so, would it be right to conclude that generally speaking, whenever an article contains a first person pronoun, regardless of whether the rest of the articles contains second and third person paragraphs, the article as whole would be considered as being in First Person perspective?

Hi Shizuka,

Yes, apologies I’ve been a bit particular/lazy with the way I worded that, which isn’t entirely accurate. When we discuss passive sentences one of the easiest ways to explain how they work is to look at them from the perspective that they reverse the typical relationship of active sentences, where the [subject] – [does], as in a passive sentence the verb [is done] without necessarily telling us who did it (so often lacking the expected active sentence subject) I.e. “Bob opened the door.” -> “The door was opened by Bob.” or possibly “The door was opened.” In the passive sentence “the door” becomes the subject, but we can lose the actual actor, Bob, entirely. So I’d slipped into that mentality suggesting passive sentences don’t necessarily have the subject in the active sense, i.e. who/what does the action, but of course you are right it isn’t accurate to say passive sentences do not have subjects. I suppose it would be more accurate to say there wouldn’t necessarily be an active actor involved.

Thinking more on your point it certainly would be possible to have a passive piece of text in a different perspective, e.g. first, if everything was done to the narrator, rather than by them, but this would be unusual. It would remove any agency because we would have no opportunity for the speaker, “I”, to act for themselves.

I hope this clarifies things.

Phil

you mentioned before that “I think it would be fair to say that if you have a piece of writing that is totally passive then it would necessarily need to be third person, as there would be no subjects as such.”

Come to think of it, could you explain what you meant by “as there would be no subjects as such”? I am confuse because I thought that even passive sentences or structures have subjects too?

Regards,
Shizuka

Yes, that’s right, section meaning passage, or any part of, and correct, it could apply generally.

Hi Shizuka,

Yes, I think that’s all a fair summary!

Phil

Dear Phil,

Sorry, I left this point out but when you said “but the overall piece itself might be in a different POV, the same way that a passage in a story may tell things in third person even though the overall story is first person, if a section doesn’t actually include the narrator or their opinions”, by “a section”, you are referring to “a passage”, correct?

Also, this understanding would apply to any other combination (e.g. overall article in second person POV, but which contain sections/passages in first/third person perspectives through the heavy use of first/third person pronouns; or article in third person POV with sections/passages in first/second person perspectives through use of first/second person pronouns)?

Regards,
Shizuka

Hi Phil,

Extracted the following from your post above, for easy reference:
“What the author is conveying, really, is writing particular sentences or instructions in the second person this way, but the overall piece itself might be in a different POV, the same way that a passage in a story may tell things in third person even though the overall story is first person, if a section doesn’t actually include the narrator or their opinions. It really comes down to if you’re analyzing particular clauses for POV, or looking at the piece as a whole. But if we step back and look at something as a complete unit of writing, for example an email, I’d say it’s very rare that an email would ever be fully second person, as it must come from someone. But certainly you might include second-person clauses, I’d just personally argue that such sentences are not a shift in POV, merely a shift in subject. If that makes sense!”

I see. So I suppose that what you mean by the above is the same as a point which we’ve covered previously (i.e. we cannot judge what an article’s POV is just solely based on looking at the pronouns used within a few sentences or paragraphs of the article). For example, an article in first person POV may contain passages/paragraphs with heavy use of second and third person pronouns, but as a whole the article is still considered to be in first person POV. Of course, if we choose to focus only on those passages that contain heavy use of second and third person pronouns from the first-person-POV article, then it is not wrong for us to conclude that these passages are written in the second or third person POV. However, again, we should not be misled by these selected passages because when these passages are read and considered as part of the entire article, the entire article is still considered as being written in first person POV, correct?

And that this understanding equally applies to articles whose POV may be second person POV, but which contains paragraphs with heavy use of first/third person pronouns, or articles in third person POV but with paragraphs with heavy use of first/second person pronouns, or any other combination?

Lastly, on your point about “”What the author is conveying, really, is writing particular sentences or instructions in the second person this way”, with ref to the example “tom and jerry” example, I suppose the author of the example is simply trying to explain the use of the second person pronouns “you,” “your,” and “yours”.

Thanks!

Regards,
Shizuka

Hi Shizuka,

Again this is one of those areas where it may depend on the purposes of what we’re trying to define – perspective is probably most often associated with fiction because it is where we make an active choice over POV, so it’s where we must give it the most thought. But absolutely POV is not restricted merely to fiction – it is a choice made in journalism, academic writing, advertising and elsewhere. Such a definition as that one, then is limited because that’s simply what the dictionary is choosing to focus on without the wider considerations of general grammar.

And thank you, I hope you have had a good Christmas!

Phil

As you’ve mentioned above, “there are three main perspectives (or points of view) in English. They are used in both fiction and non-fiction”. Since perspectives apply to fiction as well as non-fiction (i.e. real life, actual), since anything we say or write must have a perspective depending on who is saying/writing as well as how the person presents the saying/writing, may I know why certain dictionaries define “point of view” (aka perspective) as “in fictional writing, the narrator’s position in relation to a story being told”. Such a definition seems to suggest that “point of view” is a term only applied to fictional writing/saying, which is contrary to our understanding?

Would appreciate your advice, thanks! And Merry Xmast to you too!

Regards,
Shizuka