Cover not available
Part of
Linguistic Landscape in the Spanish-speaking World
Edited by Patricia Gubitosi and Michelle F. Ramos Pellicia
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 35] 2021
► pp. 45–72

Chapter 2
A changing landscape of voseo in Medellín?

The momentum of voseo in the public signage of Valle de Aburrá, Colombia

| College of Charleston

This study examines the use of second-person singular forms of address (2PS) in the linguistic landscape of Valle de Aburrá, Colombia. Along with 58 surveys from Paisas, over 300 photographs of public signage with content in 2PS were taken within urban centers. Results show that voseo has its allocated niche with a vocative function in signs authored by the current local government of Medellín and selected businesses. While ustedeo is placed in regulatory signage, pronominal tú forms are preferred for informative and commercial purposes in private and official domains in neighboring municipalities. Public perception is in favor of content with voseo, but governmental ascription seems dependent upon the administration in office rather than a steady change for all public purposes.

Keywords: second-person forms of address, Paisa Spanish, linguistic landscape, Valle de Aburrá, public perception
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • 2PS in Paisa Spanish
    • Paisa identity and the linguistic landscape of Medellin
  • Methodology
  • Results
    • 2PS in the Linguistic Landscape of Valle the Aburrá
    • Public perception and future of voseo in the LL of Valle de Aburrá
  • Discussion and conclusion
  • References
Published online: 29 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.35.02res
References
Alonzo, K. L.
(2016) Use and perception of the pronominal trio vos, tú, usted in a Nicaraguan community in Miami, Florida. In M. Moyna & S. Rivera-Mills (Eds.), Forms of address in the Spanish of the Americas (pp. 197–232). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Backhaus, P.
(2008) Rules and regulations in linguistic landscaping: A comparative perspective. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery (pp. 197–212). Routledge.Google Scholar
Barni, M., & Bagna, C.
(2008) A mapping technique and the linguistic landscape. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery (pp. 126–139). Routledge.Google Scholar
Bartens, A.
(2004) Notas sobre el uso de las formas de tratamiento en el español colombiano. Paper presented at the Pronombres de segunda persona y formas de tratamiento en las lenguas de Europa Conference. Retrieved on 15 January, 2020 from: [URL]
(2006) Notas preliminares sobre el uso de las formas de tratamiento en el español bogotano actual. Dialogic language use (pp. 209–223). Société Néophilologique de Helsinki.Google Scholar
Ben-Rafael, E., Shohamy, E., Amara, M. H., & Trumper-Hecht, N.
(2006) Linguistic landscape as symbolic construction of the public space: The case of Israel. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 7–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benavides, C.
(2003) La distribución del voseo en Hispanoamérica. Hispania, 86(3), 612–623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bishop, K., & Michnowicz, J.
(2010) Forms of address in Chilean Spanish. Hispania, 93(3), 413–429.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J.
(2013) Ethnography, superdiversity and linguistic landscapes: Chronicles of complexity. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, R., & Gilman, A.
(1960) The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 253–276). The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carr, J. R. C.
(2017) Signs of our times: Language contact and attitudes in the linguistic landscape of southeast Los Angeles (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Retrieved on 15 January, 2021 from: [URL]
Carrasco Santana, A.
(2002) Los tratamientos en español. Ediciones Colegio de España.Google Scholar
Carricaburo, N.
(1997) Las fórmulas de tratamiento en el español actual. Arco libros.Google Scholar
Carvalho, A. M.
(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
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D.
(2006) Linguistic landscape and minority languages. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 67–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chatfield, C., & Collins, A. J.
(1980) Principal component analysis. In C. Chatfield & A. J. Collins (Eds.), Introduction to multivariate analysis (pp. 57–81). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daniel, M., & Spencer, A.
(2009) The vocative – an outlier case. In A. L. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of case. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de los Heros, S.
(2001) La percepción y valoración lingüística de acentos regionales en el mantenimiento de la variante asibilada en el castellano andino: Primeros resultados. In J. Calvo Pérez (Ed.), Contacto interlingüístico e intercultural en el mundo hispano, 1 (pp. 239–257). Universitat de Valencia, Instituto valenciano de lenguas y culturas andinas.Google Scholar
Díaz Collazos, A. M.
(2015) Desarrollo sociolingüístico del voseo en la región andina de Colombia (1555–1976). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franco Rodríguez, J.
(2008) El paisaje lingüístico del Condado de Los Angeles y del Condado Miami-Dade: Propuesta metodológica. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 35(1), 3–43.Google Scholar
Freites Barros, F., & Zambrano Castro, W.
(2007) El voseo andino tachirense: ¿Marca de género? Boletin de Lingüística, 19(28), 26–45.Google Scholar
García, O., Espinet, I., & Hernández, L.
(2013) Las paredes hablan en El Barrio: Mestizo signs and semiosis. Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana, Vol. 11, 1(21), 135–152.Google Scholar
Gorter, D.
(2013) Linguistic landscapes in a multilingual world. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 190–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huebner, T.
(2008) A framework for the linguistic analysis of linguistic landscapes. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.) Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery (pp. 78–95). Routledge.Google Scholar
Hult, F. M.
(2008) Language ecology and linguistic landscape analysis. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery, (pp. 96–144). Routledge.Google Scholar
Jang, J. S.
(2010) Pronominal address forms of college students in Medellin (Colombia) from the sociopragmatic point of view: Socioeconomic status and sex. Íkala, 15(3), 43–116.Google Scholar
(2013) Voseo medellinense como expresión de identidad paisa. Íkala, 18(1), 61–81.Google Scholar
Johnstone, B., Andrus, J., & Danielson, A. E.
(2006) Mobility, indexicality, and the enregisterment of “Pittsburghese”. Journal of English Linguistics, 34(2), 77–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jolliffe, I. T.
(2002) Principal component analysis. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W.
(1966) Hypercorrection by the lower middle class as a factor in linguistic change. In W. Bright (Ed.), Proceedings of the UCLA Sociolinguistics Conference 1964 (pp. 84–113). Mouton.Google Scholar
(1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Landry, R., & Bourhis, R. Y.
(1997) Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G.
(1999) The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English conversation. Language and Computers, 26, 107–120.Google Scholar
Leeman, J., & Modan, G.
(2009) Commodified language in Chinatown: A contextualized approach to linguistic landscape. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 13(3), 332–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lipski, J. M.
(2004) El español de América y los contactos bilingües recientes: Apuntes microdialectológicos. Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana, 2(2), 89–103.Google Scholar
Lou, J. J.
(2016) The linguistic landscape of Chinatown: A sociolinguistic ethnography. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MetroMedellin
(2019) Cifras del sistema metro que hablan de una excelente gestión. Retrieved on 15 June, 2019 from: [URL]
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), 353–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Millan, M.
(2014) “Vos sos paisa”: A study of address forms in Medellin, Colombia. In R. Orozco (Ed.), New directions in Hispanic linguistics (pp. 92–111). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Newall, G. M.
(2016) Second person singular forms in Cali Colombian Spanish. In M. Moyna & S. Rivera-Mills (Eds.), Forms of address in the Spanish of the Americas (pp. 149–170). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, B. H., & Zentz, L. R.
(2016) Theorizing mobility in semiotic landscapes. Linguistic Landscape, 2(1), 26–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Páez Urdaneta, I.
(1981) Historia y geografía hispanoamericana del voseo. Casa de Bello.Google Scholar
Penny, R. J.
(2000) Variation and change in Spanish. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pharies, D. A.
(2008) A brief history of the Spanish language. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pinkerton, A.
(1986) Observations on the tú/vos option in Guatemalan Ladino Spanish. Hispania, 69(3), 690–698. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Placencia, M. E.
(2010) El estudio de formas de tratamiento en Colombia y Ecuador. In B. K. M. Hummel, M. E. Vázquez Laslop (Ed.), Formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en el mundo hispánico (pp. 341–373). El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Qualtrics, I.
(2013) Qualtrics [Version: Summer 2018]. Retrieved from: [URL]
Quintero, D.
(2019) Twitter. Retrieved from [URL]
Reh, M.
(2004) Multilingual writing: A reader-oriented typology – with examples from Lira Municipality (Uganda). International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 170, 1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Restrepo-Ramos, F.
(2020) Public signage in a multilingual Caribbean Enclave: The linguistic landscape of Old Providence and Santa Catalina, Colombia. In D. Pascual y Cabo & I. Elola (Eds.), Current theoretical and applied perspectives on Hispanic and Lusophone linguistics (pp. 273–294). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021) If signs could talk: The linguistic landscape of the archipelago of San Andres, Colombia. In L. M. Leung G. & H. Leusman (Eds.), When Creole and Spanish collide: Language and cultural contact in the Caribbean. Brill.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D.
(1988) Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation. Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, 4, 140–161.Google Scholar
Sebba, M.
(2010) Discourses in transit. In A. Jaworski & C. Thurlow (Eds.), Semiotic landscapes: Language, image, space (pp. 59–76). Continuum.Google Scholar
Shohamy, E., & Gorter, D.
(Eds.) (2008) Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spolsky, B.
(2008) Prolegomena to a sociolinguistic theory of public signage. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds), Linguistic Landscape. Expanding the scenery (pp. 33–47). Routledge.Google Scholar
(2012) The Cambridge handbook of language policy. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szabó, T. P., & Troyer, R. A.
(2017) Inclusive ethnographies: Beyond the binaries of observer and observed in linguistic landscape studies. Linguistic Landscape, 3(3), 306–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A.
(2011) Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Team, R. C.
(2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from [URL]
Uber, D. R.
(1985) The dual function of usted: Forms of address in Bogotá, Colombia. Hispania, 68(2), 388–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W., & Herzog, M.
(1968) Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. Columbia University.Google Scholar
Weyers, J.
(2009) The impending demise of tú in Montevideo, Uruguay. Hispania, 92(4), 829–839.Google Scholar
(2016) Medellin cuenta con vos: The changing role of voseo in written communication/ Medellin cuenta con vos: El papel cambiante de voseo en la comunicacion escrita. comunicación 35, 67–82.Google Scholar
(2018) Beer, hot dogs and politics: The vocative function of Medellín’s voseo. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, 95(5), 475–490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 march 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.