Going beyond address forms: Variation and style in the use of the second-person pronouns tú and usted

María José Serrano
Universidad de La Laguna, Tenerife
Abstract

The cognitive properties of morphosyntactic choices are at the base of any usage, patterns and tendencies they could possibly reveal; thus, by means of the cognitive properties of salience and informativeness, variation in second-person tú and usted must be considered as inherently meaningful, implying that each form conveys a different meaning that is used to pursue concrete communicative goals in discursive interaction. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of tú and usted and their syntactic variants (preverbal, postverbal and omitted) reveals that these forms are unevenly distributed across different textual genres and socioprofessional affiliations of speakers. It may be concluded that tú and usted contribute toward shaping the different communicative styles on the basis of the cognitive dimensions of objectivity and subjectivity, respectively. Considering these pronouns as meaningful choices by themselves, this study attempts to go beyond the traditional approach that treats them as terms of address, delving into the discursive and cognitive traits which underlie such a variation.

Keywords:
Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Aijón Oliva, Miguel Ángel
2009 “ Tú yusted como estrategias de estilo y persuasión en la comunicación publicitaria.” Tonos Digital 18 [www​.tonosdigital​.com].
Aijón Oliva, Miguel Ángel, y María José Serrano
2013 Style in Syntax: Investigating Variation in Spanish Pronoun Subjects. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Alarcos Llorach, Emilio
1999 Gramática de la Lengua Española. Madrid: España.Google Scholar
Almeida, Manuel, Juana Rodríguez, and Adela Morín
2006 “Pronombres de trato y clase social en una comunidad canaria.” Revista de Filología de la Universidad de La Laguna 24: 11–24.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira
2001 “Accessibility Theory: An Overview.” In Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects, ed. by Teed Sanders, Joost Schilperoord, and Wilbert Spooren, 29–87. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ardehali, Paula Elizabeth
1990 “Pronoun Exchange as a Barometer of Social Change.” Dialectal Anthropology 15: 82–86.Google Scholar
Beard, Adrian
2000 The Language of Politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Beaugrande, Robert, and Wolfgang U. Dressler
1997 Introducción a la Lingüística del Texto. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Susan Conrad
2009 Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blas Arroyo, José Luis
2000 “Mire usted Sr. González…Personal Deixis in Spanish Political Electoral Debate.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Sociolingüística del Español. Desarrollos y Perspectivas en el Estudio de la Lengua Española en Contexto Social. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
Branigan, Holly P., Martin J. Pickering, and Mikihiro Tanaka
2008 “Contributions of Animacy to Grammatical Function Assignment and Word Order during Production.” Lingua 118: 172–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman
1960 “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity.” In Style in Language, ed. by Thomas Sebeok, 253–276. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William, and Allan D. Cruse
2004 Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Brad
1996 ‘Pragmatic Weigth’ and Spanish Subject Pronouns: The Pragmatic and Discourse Uses of ‘tú’ and ‘yo’ in Spoken Madrid Spanish.” Journal of Pragmatics 26: 543–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duszak, A.
2002 Us and Others. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enríquez, Emilia
1984 El pronombre personal sujeto en la lengua española hablada en Madrid. Madrid: CSIC.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
1989 Language and Power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Finegan, Edward
1995 “Subjectivity and Subjectivisation in Language: An Introduction.” In Subjectivity and Subjectivisation in Language, ed. by Dieter Stein, and Susan Wright, 1–15. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam
2009 “Word Order.” In Grammar, Meaning and Pragmatics, ed. by Frank Brisard, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jef Verschueren, 289–300. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García, Erica C.
2009 The Motivated Syntax of Arbitrary Signs: Cognitive Constraints on Spanish Clitic Clustering. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geluykens, Ronald
1992 From Discourse Process to Grammatical Construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, Israel R.
2003 Salience, Context and Figurative Language. Oxford: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
1995 Constructions: A Construction-grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
2001 Syntax: An Introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., and Thorstein Fretheim
2009 “Information Structure.” In Grammar, Meaning and Pragmatics, ed. by Frank Brisard, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jef Verschueren, 149–160. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski
1993 “Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse.” Language 69: 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hidalgo Downing, Raquel
2003 La Tematización en el Español Hablado. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Hummel, Martin
2010 “Reflexiones metodológicas y teóricas sobre el estudio de las formas de tratamiento en el mundo Hispanoablante, a Partir de una Investigación en Santiago de Chile.” In Formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en el mundo hispánico, ed. by Martin Hummel, Bettina Kluge, María Eugenia Vázquez Laslop, 103–162. México: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Kendall, Martha
1981 “Toward a Semantic Approach to Terms of Address: A Critique of Deterministic Models in Sociolinguistics.” Language in Communication 1 (2–3): 237–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keniston, Hayward
1937 Syntax. The Syntax of Castilian Prose. Chicago: University Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus and Mental Representations of Discourse Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1994 “The Limits of Continuity: Discreteness in Cognitive Semantics.” In Continuity in Linguistic Semantics, ed. by Catherine Fuch, and Bernard Victorri, 9–20. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martiny, Thierry
1996 “Forms of Address in French and Dutch: A Sociopragmatic Approach.” Language Sciences 18 (3–4): 765–775. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Medina López, Javier
2009 “El tú del presidente. La ruptura del rol social.” Revista Española de Lingüística 39 (1): 77–109.Google Scholar
Medina Morales, Francisco
2010 “La metodología en los estudios sobre formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en español.” In Formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en el mundo hispánico, ed. by Martin Hummel, Bettina Kluge, and María Eugenia Vázquez Laslop, 23–56. México: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Miñano López Julia
2007 Y ahora la gramática, 1. Nivel principiante. Barcelona: Publicaciones y Ediciones de la Universidad de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Morford, J.
1997 “Social Indexicality in French Pronominal Address.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 7: 3–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter, and Rom Harré
1990 Pronouns and People. Massachusetts: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nowikow, Wiaczeslav
2010 “Sobre los motivos del empleo de tú y usted. de estudiantes universitarios en Guadalajara (Jalisco, México) desde la perspectiva de los enfoques socio y etológico-lingüísticos.” In Formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en el mundo hispánico, ed. by Martin Hummel, Bettina Kluge, and María Eugenia Vázquez Laslop, 795–808. México: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Pennycook, Alastair
1994 “The Politics of Pronouns.” ELTJ 48 (2): 173–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen F.
1981 “Toward a Taxonomy of Given-New Information.” In Radical Pragmatics, . ed. by Peter Cole, 223–255. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rosengren, Paul
1974 Presencia o Ausencia de los Pronombres Personales Sujetos en Español Moderno. Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1972 “On the Analysability of Stories by Children.” In Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, ed. by John Gumperz, and Dell Hymes, 325–435. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
2007 “A Tutorial on Membership Categorization.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 462–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sánchez López, Cristina
1993 “Una anomalía del sistema pronominal español.” Dicenda: Cuadernos de Filología Hispánica 11: 259–284.Google Scholar
Serrano, María José
2001 “La deixis social en los usos pronominales de cortesía en español.” Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique. 9–10: 265–280.Google Scholar
2006 Gramática del discurso. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
2011 “‘Otras personas y yo’: Variación socioestilística del pronombre nosotros. en conversaciones espontáneas.” In Variación variable, ed. by María Jos� Serrano, 93–126. Almería: Círculo Rojo/Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación.Google Scholar
2012 “El sujeto pronominal usted. /ustedes. y su posición. Variación y creación de estilos comunicativos.” Spanish in Context 9 (1): 109–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serrano, María José, and Miguel Ángel Aijón Oliva
2012 “Cuando tú eres yo: La inespecificidad referencial de tú. como recurso de objetivación en el discurso.” Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica 60: 541–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Discourse Objectivization, Social Variation and Style in the Use of Spanish Second-Person tú.” Folia Lingüística 48 (1): 225–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, Carmen
2001 Sociolingüística y pragmática del Español. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
2003 “Indexical Order and the Dialectics of Sociolinguistic Life.” Language and Communication 23: 193–229 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen
1996 “Reconsidering Power and Distance.” Journal of Pragmatics 26: 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Miranda
2003 “‘Pragmatic Weight’ and Face: Pronominal Presence and the Case of the Spanish Second Person Singular Pronoun tú.” Journal of Pragmatics 35: 191–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stirling, Lesley, and Lenore Manderson
2011 “About you: Empathy, Objectivity and Authority.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1681–1502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Theodoropoulou, I.
2014 Sociolinguistics of Style and Social Class in Contemporary Athens. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Compernolle, Rémi A.
2008 Second-Person Pronoun Use and Address Strategies in On-line Personal Ads from Quebec.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 2062–2070. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Developing a Sociocultural Orientation to Variation in Language.” Language & Communication 31 (1): 86–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard, Sachiko, Ide, and Konrad Ehlich
1992 “Linguistic Politeness and Politic Behaviour: Reconsidering Claims for Universality.” In Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, by Richard Watts et al., 21–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, John
1990 Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Williams, Lawrence, and Rémi A. van Compernolle
2009 “Second-person Pronoun Use in French Language Discussion Fora.” Journal of French Language Studies 19 (3): 363–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zupnik , Janette
1994 “A Pragmatic Analysis of the Use of Person Deixis in Political Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 21: 339–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar