Cover not available
Part of
Language Change in the 20th Century: Exploring micro-diachronic evolutions in Romance languages
Edited by Salvador Pons Bordería and Shima Salameh Jiménez
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 340] 2024
► pp. 188–217

Chapter 6
How are linguistic changes in the 20th century to be studied?

Sp. VOC-tío or merging sociolinguistic and philological explanations

| University of Valencia

This paper analyzes the diffusion of linguistic change through a case study focusing on the adoption of tío as a vocative and discourse marker in the 1970s and 1980s. Two strands of research are used to explain this case: Firstly, Labov’s (2010) theory of diffusion in linguistic change is used to provide essential insights about the groups of speakers who initiate and promote such changes. Second, philological information is considered, encompassing factors beyond groups of speakers: the linguistic features of the constructions involved in a change, the historical context in which the change occurred, the associated social practices, the influence of specific locations (cities, neighborhoods), and also the impact of influential individuals in promoting one linguistic solution over another. It is only when both sets of information are brought together that the necessary and sufficient information about linguistic change can be achieved. The 20th century proves particularly suitable for conducting this type of research.

Keywords: vocatives, diffusion, linguistic change, colloquial Spanish, youth language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Sp. tío vs. Sp. macho: From address term to vocatives and DM: Two evolutions face to face
    • 2.1Sp. tío: Constructionalization in a nutshell
    • 2.2Stalled innovations: The rise and stagnation of macho
  • 3.Difussion is necessary: S-shaping tío
    • 3.1S-shaped adoption of innovations
    • 3.2Diffusion of tío across groups of speakers
      • 3.2.1Innovators: The Rrollo youngsters (ca. 1968–1973)
      • 3.2.2Early users: Rrollo followers (ca. 1974–1978)
      • 3.2.3An early majority: The Movida madrileña (approx. 1979–84)
      • 3.2.4Late majority and laggards
    • 3.3Transmission and permanence (1980 on)
  • 4.Difussion is not sufficient: Bringing new data into the picture
    • 4.1Structural factors
    • 4.2Historical factors (Transición)
    • 4.3Geographical factors (Madrid, Seville and Barcelona)
    • 4.4Social factors: Lifestyle and new practices
    • 4.5Cultural factors
      • 4.5.1Music
      • 4.5.2Comics and movies
      • 4.5.3Press and TV
    • 4.6The weight of the individual
      • 4.6.1Hoods (Vallekas)
      • 4.6.2Writers (Umbral)
    • 4.7A hypothetical reconstruction for the linguistic change?
  • 5.The study of linguistic change in the 20th century: A replicable approach?
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 January 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.340.06pon
References
Beinhauer, Werner
1929:1979 Colloquial Spanish. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Blythe, Richard and William Croft
2012 “S-curves and the mechanism of propagation in language change.” Language, 88(2), 269–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Briz, Antonio
et al. 1995 La conversación coloquial. Materiales para su estudio. Valencia, Universidad.Google Scholar
Burgos, Antonio
1977 “El lenguaje del Rrollo rockero.” Triunfo digital 769, 46–48.Google Scholar
Casado Velarde, Manuel
1978 Lengua e ideología: estudio de Diario Libre. University of Navarra.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio
1981 “La lengua funcional.” Lecciones de lingüística general. Madrid, Gredos.Google Scholar
Costa, Jordi
2018 How to end the counterculture. Una historia subterránea de España. Madrid: Taurus.Google Scholar
[CORLEC]
Marcos Marín, F. (dir.). Corpus Oral de Referencia de la Lengua Española Contemporánea (CORLEC). [URL]
[CORMA]
Enghels, Renata, Fien De Latte, Linde Roels and Sanhe Tanghe. Oral Corpus of Madrid.
Croft, William
2000 Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Cueto, Juan
1979: “El castellano es una jerga”, El País Semanal, 135, 11–11-1979.Google Scholar
De Latte, Fien and Enghels, Renata
2018 The (socio)linguistic variation of the vocative in present-day Madrid Spanish. In Chauveau, J. P. and Goebl, H. (coords.). Travaux de Linguistique Romane – Sociolinguistique, dialectologie, variation. ÉliPhi: Strasbourg, 233–248.Google Scholar
De Latte, Fien
In press. “Countercultural vocatives: paradigmatic changes and diffusion to current colloquial Spanish.”
Dopico, Pablo
2011 Paper sputum. The Spanish underground comic strip. Arbor. Science, Thought and Culture 87, 169–181.Google Scholar
Enghels, Renata, Fiona de Latte and Linde Roels
2020 “El Corpus Oral de Madrid (CORMA)materiales para el estudio (socio)lingüístico del español coloquial actual.” Zeitschrift für Katalanistik: Revista d’Estudis Catalans 33, 45–76.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N.
1992 Discourse and social change. Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Feixà Pàmpols, Carles
2004 Studies on youth cultures in Spain (1960–2003). Journal of Youth Studies 64, 9–28.Google Scholar
Hoyos Gonzalez, M. de
1981 A variety in colloquial speech: the slang ‘cheli’. Cauce: Revista de filologia y su didáctica 4: 31–42.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, A. M.
2008 Tío and tía as markers in the language of Madrid. In Olza Moreno, I.; Casado Velarde, M. and R. González Ruiz (eds.). Actas del XXXVII Simposio Internacional e la Sociedad Español de Lingüística (SEL). Pamplona: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra, 387–396.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, A. M. and Martínez López, J. A.
2010 Tronco/a used as a discourse marker in the youth language of Madrid. Romanica Stockholmiensia 26, 67–80.Google Scholar
2012 Vocatives in the youth language of Santiago de Chile and Madrid. In García, C. and Placencia, M. E. (eds.). Studies of pragmatic variation in Spanish. Buenos Aires: Editorial Dunken: 141–166.Google Scholar
Labov, William
1994 Principles of linguistic Change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2001 Principles of linguistic Change. Vol. 2. Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2008 «Quantitative reasoning in linguistics». Available at: [URL].Google Scholar
2010 Principles of linguistic Change. Cognitive and cultural factors. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 “Te role of the Avant Garde in linguistic diffusion.” Language. Variation and Change 20, 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lázaro Carreter, F.
1979 A juvenile slang: ‘el cheli’. ABC, 14/10/1979: 118.Google Scholar
León, Víctor
1980 Diccionario de argot español. Madrid: Alianza.Google Scholar
Llopis Cardona, Ana and Montañez Mesas, Marta Pilar
2020 Los marcadores apelativos en el español peninsular. En Hidalgo, A.; Cabedo, A. (eds.), Pragmática del español hablado: hacia nuevos horizontes. València: Universitat de València, 319–336.Google Scholar
Llopis Cardona, Ana and Salvador Pons Bordería
2020 La gramaticalización de macho y tío/a como ciclo semántico-pragmático. CLAC, 151–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López Serena, A.
2014 “De la oralidad fingida a la oralidad simuladora de realidad. Reflexiones en torno a la coloquialización del discurso como estrategia mediática.” Español actual: revista de español vivo, 102, 37–75.Google Scholar
Milroy, James, and Lesley Milroy
1985 Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics 21.339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milroy, L., & Milroy, J.
(1992) Social network and social class: Toward an integrated sociolinguistic model. Language in Society, 21(1), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milroy, Lesley, and James Milroy
1992 “Social network and social class: Towards an integrated sociolinguistic model.” Language in Society 21, 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James
(2000) Historical description and the ideology of the standard language. In Laura Wright (ed.) The Development of Standard English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 11-28.Google Scholar
Moliner, M.
1967 Diccionario de uso del espanol. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Moreno Fernández, Francisco
1998 Principios de sociolingüística y sociología del lenguaje. Ariel.Google Scholar
Moreno, Manuel & Cuevas, Abel
(2020) Todo era posible: revistas underground y de contracultura en España, 1968-1983. Libros Walden.Google Scholar
Moreno Fernández, Francisco
2009 Principles of sociolinguistics and sociology of language. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Navarro, Felipe; Sordo, Julen
1979 Diccionario del pasota. Barcelona: Planeta.Google Scholar
Octavio de Toledo, Álvaro
2014 Between grammaticalization, informational structure and discursive traditions: something more about “nada”. In Procesos de gramaticalización en la historia del español, ed. by José Luis Girón Alconchel, Daniel Moisés Sáez Rivera, 263–319.Google Scholar
Oliver, Juan Manuel
1983 Dictionary of slang. Madrid: Sena.Google Scholar
Ordovás, Jesús
1977 De qué va el Rrollo. Madrid: Ed. La Piqueta.Google Scholar
Pons Bordería, S.
2014 El siglo XX como diacronía: intuición y comprobación en el caso de “o esa”. Rilce. Revista de Filología Hispánica, 30(3), 985–1016.Google Scholar
Pons Bordería, S. y Llopis Cardona, A.
2020 Some reflections on semantic-pragmatic cycles. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 21, 31–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postma, G.
2010 “The impact of failed changes,” in Continuity and Change in Grammar, ed. A. Breitbarth, C. Lucas, S. Watts, and D. Willis (eds.), Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 269–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Royal Spanish Academy
1739 Diccionario de Autoridades. Madrid: Real Academia Espanola.
Ribas Sanpons, José
2007 Los 70 a piecjo: Ajoblanco y libertad. Barcelona: RBA.Google Scholar
Rodríguez González, Félix
2002 “Lenguaje y contracultura juvenil: anatomía de una generación.” In El lenguaje de los jóvenes, ed. by Félix Rodríguez, 29–56. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Méndez, José María. Los quinquis de Madriz
[1967] 2005 Selected theater. Volume I. Madrid: Asociación de autores de Teatro. 421–488.Google Scholar
Rogers, Everett M.
2003 Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Schützler, Ole
2020 Frequency changes and stylistic levelling of though in diachronic and synchronic varieties of English–linguistic democratisation?. Language Sciences, 2020, vol. 79, p. 101-266.Google Scholar
Rosemeyer, Malte
2016 “The development of iterative verbal periphrases in Romance.” Linguistics 54.2, 235–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanmartín Sáez, Julia
1997 El argot de la delincuencia (investigación en el establecimiento penitenciario de Valencia). Universitat de València. Tesis doctoral.Google Scholar
Roszak, Theodore
1970 The birth of a counterculture: reflections on technocratic society and its youthful opposition. Barcelona: Kairós.Google Scholar
Tovar Llorente, Antonio
1968 Latin of Hispania. Lexical aspects of Romanization. Reception speech at the Real Academia. Madrid: Real Academia Española.Google Scholar
Umbral, Francisco
1972 Spleen de Madrid. Madrid: Organización Sala Editorial.Google Scholar
1978 Diario de un snob 2. Madrid: Titivillus.Google Scholar
1983 Diccionario cheli. Barcelona: Grijalbo.Google Scholar
[VAL.ES.CO. 2002] Briz, Antonio and Grupo Val.Es.Co
2002 Corpus of colloquial conversations. València: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universitat de València.
Vázquez Carranza, Ariel
2020 Saludos y despedidas: tipología y contraste entre datos intuitivos y observacionales. Pragmática sociocultural 8, 2, 182–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar