Cover not available
Part of
Forms of Address in the Spanish of the Americas
Edited by María Irene Moyna and Susana Rivera-Mills
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 10] 2016
► pp. 149–170

Second person singular forms in Cali Colombian Spanish

Enhancing the envelope of variation

| St. Bonaventure University
Inspired by previous research, this investigation includes both social and linguistic variables in analyses of production of second person singular forms in Cali, Colombian Spanish. Preliminary analyses had found similarities between the forms; to clarify variation, there are three separate analyses (tú/vos, tú/usted, vos/usted). Twenty-one participants completed an oral-discourse completion task. Results show tú and vos pattern similarly by age and relationship but differ by gender, social network, and all linguistic variables. Tú and usted differ by age, relationship, verbal frequency, and subject pronoun expression. Vos and usted differ by all social factors and show similar rates of subject pronoun expression. The analysis complements previous research on this phenomenon and enhances the envelope of variation by more descriptively reporting variation.
Published online: 25 August 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.10.08new
References (48)
References
Barron, A. (2006). Learning to say ‘you’ in German: The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in a study abroad context. In M.A. DuFon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 59-88). Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Baumler-Schreffler, S. (1994). Second person singular pronoun options in the speech of Salvadorans in Houston, Texas. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 13, 101-119.Google Scholar
Bayona, P. (2006). Sociolinguistic competences in the use of Colombian pronouns of address. In C. Gurski & M. Radisic (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2006 Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference , Vol. 23 (pp. 1-14). Available from <[URL]>
Bentivoglio, P. & Sedano, M. (1993). Investigación sociolingüística: Sus métodos aplicados a una experiencia venezolana. Boletín de Lingüística, 8, 3-35.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. (2009). From stance to style: Gender, interaction, and indexicality in Mexican immigrant youth slang. In A. Jaffe (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 146-170). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 425-455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711-733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Eddington, D. (2006). A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 82, 323-355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, R., & Flores-Ferrán, N. (2004). Perseverance of subject expression across regional dialects. Spanish in Context, 1(1), 41-65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, A. (2010). ¿Eres de la frontera o sos de la capital? Variation and alternation of second person verbal forms in Uruguayan border Spanish. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 29(1), 1-23.Google Scholar
Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadísticas. (2005). Censo.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J.W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erker, D., & Guy, G. (2012). The role of lexical frequency in syntactic variability: Variable subject personal pronoun expression in Spanish. Language, 88(2), 526-557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flores-Ferrán, N. (2004). Spanish subject personal pronoun use in New York City Puerto Ricans: Can we rest the case of English contact? Language Variation and Change, 16, 49-73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeslin, K.L., García-Amaya, L.A., Hasler-Barker, M., Henriksen, N.C., & Killam, J. (2010). The SLA of direct object pronouns in a study abroad immersion environment where use is variable. In C. Borgonovo, M. Español-Echevarría, & P. Prévost (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 12th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 246-259). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Geeslin, K., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2006). The second language acquisition of variable structures in Spanish by Portuguese speakers. Language Learning, 56(1), 53-107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gudmestad, A. (2006). L2 variation and the Spanish subjunctive: Linguistic features predicting mood selection. In C.A. Klee & T.L. Face (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 7th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages (pp. 170-184). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Rivas, C. (2010). Los usos de “tú” y “ud.” en los actos de habla: Una aproximación a la pragmática del bilingüe. Alpha, 31, 85-102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hassal, T. (2006). Learning to take leave in social conversations: A diary study. In M.A. DuFon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 31-58). Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking (pp. 316-341). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Kinginger, C., & Farrell, K. (2004). Assessing development of meta-pragmatic awareness in study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 19-42.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (2001). Principles of linguistic change, Volume II: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Maestre Moreno, P. (2010). Alternancia de formas de tratamiento como estrategia discursiva en conversaciones colombianas. In M. Hummel, B. Kluge, & M.E. Vázquez Laslop (Eds.), Formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en el mundo hispánico (pp. 1033-1049). Mexico City/Graz: El Colegio de México/Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz.Google Scholar
Márquez-Reiter, R., & Placencia, M.E. (2005). Spanish pragmatics. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michnowicz, J., & Place, S. (2010). Perceptions of second person singular pronoun use in San Salvador, El Salvador. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 3(2), 353-377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milroy, L. (1987). Language and social networks (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Millán, M. (2010). Pronominal address in two varieties of Colombian Spanish. Paper presented at 14th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium , Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, October 14-17, 2010.
Murillo Fernández, M.E. (2003). El polimorfismo en los pronombres de tratamiento del habla payanesa. Actes du Colloque Pronoms de deuxième personne et formes d’adresse dans les langues d’Europe. Paris: Instituto Cervantes.Google Scholar
Newall, G. (2010). The subjective component of variation: Second person singular forms in Cali Colombian Spanish. Paper presented at 14th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium , Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, October 14-17, 2010.
. (2012). Second person singular forms in Caleño Spanish: Applying a theory of language regard. (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 335–358). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Páez Urdaneta, I. (1981). Historia y geografía hispanoamericana del voseo. Caracas: Casa de BelloGoogle Scholar
Poplack, S., & Malvar, E. (2007). Elucidating the transition period in linguistic change: the expression of the future in Brazilian Portuguese. Probus, 19, 121-169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poplack, S., & Tagliamonte, S. (1999). The grammaticalization of going to in (African American) English. Language Variation and Change, 11, 315-342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poplack, S., & Turpin, D. (1999). Does the FUTUR have a future in (Canadian) French? Probus, 11, 133-164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, D., Tagliamonte, S., & Smith, E. (2005). Goldvarb X: A variable rule application for Macintosh and Windows. Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Schwenter, S.A. (1993). Diferenciación dialectal por medio de pronombres: Una comparación del uso de tú y usted en España y México. Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica, 41(1), 127-49.Google Scholar
Siegal, M. (1994). Looking east: Learning Japanese as a second language in Japan and the interaction of race, gender and social context. (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Simpson, J.M. (2005). The ‘American voseo’ in Cali, Colombia: An ethnographic study. Romansk Forum, 15, 25-32.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, R. (2011). Variation and grammaticalization. In M. Díaz-Campos (Ed.), Handbook of Hispanic sociolinguistics (pp. 148-167). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Travis, C. (2006). The communicative realisation of confianza and calor humano in Colombian Spanish. In C. Goddard (Ed.), Ethnopragmatics: Understanding discourse in cultural context (pp. 199-229). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uber, D.R. (1984). The pronouns of address in the Spanish of Bogotá, Colombia. The SECOL Review, 8, 59-74.Google Scholar
. (1985). The dual function of usted: Forms of address in Bogotá, Colombia. Hispania, 68(2), 388-392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Forms of address: The effect of the context. In M. Díaz-Campos (Ed.), Handbook of Hispanic sociolinguistics (pp. 244-262). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Fernández-Mallat, Víctor & David Barrero
2023. Changes and continuities in second person address pronoun usage in Bogotá Spanish. Open Linguistics 9:1 DOI logo
Fernández-Mallat, Víctor & Michael Newman
2022. Continuity and Change in New Dialect Formation: Tú vs. Usted in New York City Spanish. Journal of Language Contact 15:1 ► pp. 240 ff. DOI logo
Restrepo-Ramos, Falcon & Nofiya Denbaum-Restrepo
2022. The Syntactic and Discourse Properties of Second Person Singular Forms of Address inPaisaSpanish. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 15:2 ► pp. 453 ff. DOI logo
Restrepo-Ramos, Falcon D.
2021. Chapter 2. A changing landscape of voseo in Medellín?. In Linguistic Landscape in the Spanish-speaking World [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 35], ► pp. 45 ff. DOI logo
Tuten, Donald N.
2021. Complexification of the early modern Spanish address system: A role for koineization?. In Spanish Socio-Historical Linguistics [Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics, 12], ► pp. 18 ff. DOI logo
Bland, Justin & Terrell A. Morgan
2020. Chapter 1. Geographic variation of voseo on Spanish Twitter. In Current Theoretical and Applied Perspectives on Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 27], ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
Foster, Daniel, Suzanne Aalberse & Wessel Stoop
2019. Examining Twitter as a source for address research using Colombian Spanish. In It’s not all aboutyou [Topics in Address Research, 1], ► pp. 76 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.