Cover not available
Part of
Aspects of Latin American Spanish Dialectology: In honor of Terrell A. Morgan
Edited by Manuel Díaz-Campos and Sandro Sessarego
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 32] 2021
► pp. 11–28

Chapter 1
Between vos and usted

A sample of power negotiation in Nicaraguan Spanish during a baseball practice

 | Baylor University
This chapter examines how Nicaraguan Spanish speakers alternate between vos and usted to index power negotiations in (a)symmetric exchanges during a baseball practice. The variation in pronominal exchanges shows directionalities: certain pronoun usage can mitigate, demonstrate solidarity, or empower commands. I research (1) the direction (voseo/ustedeo) of mitigation of the message, (2) the relationship (symmetric/asymmetric) of alternation between vos and usted, and (3) how uses of ustedeo are redefined from established definitions of “formality.” This study has a pragmatic focus based on courtesy theory. Vos and usted alternated actively, offering innovative practices as acts of power. Speakers use polite alternatives when familiarity and affect are negotiated through the use of voseo or ustedeo as a pragmatic value of the request.
Keywords: Nicaragua, baseball, voseo , ustedeo , forms of address, power
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Framework
  • 3.Previous studies
    • 3.1 Voseo versus ustedeo
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Data analysis
  • 5.Results and discussion
    • 5.1Interactions during baseball practice
    • 5.2Symmetric interactions
    • 5.3Asymmetric interactions
      • 5.3.1Ascendant addressing
      • 5.3.2Descendant addressing
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 12 January 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.32.01lop
References (20)
References
Blas Arroyo, J. (1994). Tú and usted: Two polite pronouns in present-day Spanish: Data from a peninsular community. Estudios de Lingüística, 10, 21–44.Google Scholar
(1995). An exercise in interactional sociolinguistics: The case of address pronouns in contemporary Spanish. Verba, 22, 229–252.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1990). You don’t touch lettuce with your fingers: Parental politeness in family discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 259–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boretti de Macchia, S. H., & Rigatuso, E. M. (2004). La investigación de la Cortesía en el español de la Argentina. Estado de la cuestión. In D. Bravo & A. Briz (Eds.), Pragmática sociocultural: Estudios sobre el discurso de cortesía en español (pp. 137–168). Barcelona, Spain: Editorial Ariel.Google Scholar
Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1972). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In P. P. Giglioli (Ed.), Language and Social Context, (pp. 252–282). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
(1989). Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in Society, 18(2), 159–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carricaburo, N. (1997). Las fórmulas de tratamiento en el español actual. Madrid: Arco libros.Google Scholar
Christiansen, A., & Chavarría, C. (2010). Entre el habla y la escritura: Un análisis de las formas de tratamiento en los anuncios comerciales en Managua, Nicaragua. Revista Cátedra, 14(1), 61–74.Google Scholar
Ferrari, L. D. (2015). Spanish varieties of Latin America 1: South America. In K. Jungbluth & F. Da Milano (Eds.), Manual of deixis in Romance languages (pp. 258–278). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gómez Sánchez, M. E., & Jungbluth, K. (2015). European Spanish. In K. Jungbluth & F. Da Milano (Ed.), Manual of deixis in Romance languages (pp. 240–257). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lipski, J. (2000). El español que se habla en El Salvador y su importancia para la dialectología hispanoamericana. Científica: Universidad de Don Bosco, 2, 65–88.Google Scholar
López Alonzo, K. (2016). Use and perception of the pronominal trio vos, tú, usted in a Nicaraguan community in Miami, Florida. In M. I. Moyna & S. Rivera-Mills (Eds.), Forms of address in the Spanish of the Americas (pp. 197–232). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michno, J. (2017). Nicaragua y ¿vos, tú, o usted?: Pronoun use and identity construction in an area of recent linguistic and cultural contact (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Moser, K. (2006). La variación entre formas ustedeantes y voseantes a nivel del discurso familiar en la clase media y alta de San José – Costa Rica: ¿una estrategia de cortesía? In M. Schrader-Kniffki (Ed.), La cortesía del mundo hispánico: Nuevos contextos, nuevos enfoques metodológicos, (pp. 97–116). Frankfurt, Germany/Madrid, Spain: Vervuert/Iberoamericana. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Tres hipótesis acerca de la (des)cortesía en el tratamiento diádico informal-familiar de San José, Costa Rica. In M. Perl, M. Portilla Chaves, & V. Sánchez Corrales (Eds.), Estudios sobre el español centroamericano. Revista Internacional Iberoamericana VI, 1, (pp. 129–145). Frankfurt, Germany/Madrid, Spain: Vervuert/Iberoamericana.Google Scholar
(2011). Deixis personal en Costa Rica (San José) y Argentina (Córdoba): Ustedeo versus voseo ¿Dos soluciones diferentes para el mismo sistema? In L. Rebollo Couto & C. R. dos Santos Lopez, (Eds.) As formas de tratamento em português e em espagnol. Variação, mudança e funções conversacionais/Las formas de tratamiento en español y en portugués. Variación, cambio y funciones conversacionales (pp. 437–454). Niterói, Brazil: Editora da Universidade Federal Fluminense.Google Scholar
(2015). Spanish varieties of Latin America, 2: Mexico and Central America. In K. Jungbluth & F. Da Milano (Eds.), Manual of deixis in Romance languages, 6 (pp. 279–296). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parodi, C. (2003). Contacto de dialectos del español en Los Ángeles. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 7(1), 3–37.Google Scholar
Rey, A. (1996). Social correlates of the Voseo of Managua, Nicaragua: Family and neighborhood domains. Hispanic Journal, 17(1), 113–128.Google Scholar
Rojas Blanco, L. (2003). A propósito del voseo: Su historia, su morfología y su situación en Costa Rica. Revista Educación, 27(2), 143–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar