On explaining interactional shifts between the three terms of address in everyday situations in Chilean Spanish

On explaining interactional shifts between the three terms of address in everyday

situations in Chilean Spanish

Kris Helincks

Ghent University

INAR-I Conference: Address choice and negotiation of

address Universität Hildesheim, 10-12 June 2014

Overview 1. The address system in Chile 2. Shifting of ToAs in Chile: literature & examples 3. Research questions 4. Corpus material 5. Results

RQ1. What is the unmarked ToA in Chile, according to situation? RQ2. How frequent is interactional shifting? RQ3. Is shifting as frequent in all types of situations? RQ4. Who shifts? vs. who does not shift? RQ5. What are the most frequent shifting schemes? RQ6. What is the frequency of shifting schemes vs. exclusive ToAs?

6. Final conclusions 7. Further questions 8. References

2

The address system in Chile

3

Pron. Verb Conventional meaning:

usted habla, tiene U 1. respect, distance 2. tenderness

tú hablas, tienes T proximity

tú hablái, tení(s) V

vulgarity/familiarity, intimacy

vos hablái, tení(s) vulgarity, disrespect

The address system in Chile

4

verbal forms Conventional meaning:

usted habla, tiene U 1. respect, distance 2. tenderness

tú hablas, tienes T proximity

tú hablái, tení(s) V

vulgarity/familiarity, intimacy

vos hablái, tení(s) vulgarity, disrespect

Focus: interactional shifting between terms of address (ToAs): ustedeo (U), tuteo (T) and voseo (V)

Shifting of ToAs in Chile: Literature & examples

Hummel (2010, 134-135, own translation):

The great richness of Chilean Spanish is its marked culture of shifting address, whether through established semantic-pragmatic address schemes, or through spontaneous shifts which express a situational attitudinal shift. The fact that some types of shifts have names (usted of tenderness, usted of anger, vos of insult or anger, flattering tú, academic tú, military/virile tú, etc.) demonstrates its spread and acceptance as socially recognized address schemes (cf. Fitch 1998: 7 and 45-49).

5


Recent studies on Chilean ToAs:

No focus on shifting, only anecdotal explanations

Torrejón (2010, 762-763, own translation):

In the [television] programme [...] generally use tuteo [...] occasionally use voseo. [...] It concerns a spontaneous emotional reaction in which the speaker suddenly loses control of his less informal register. More difficult to explain are the following examples: [...] In the other cases of shift between voseo and tuteo, there has been determined that both forms exist and speakers who use tuteo forms in some exchanges, use voseo forms in other ones.

6


7 School bus: 3 girls, age: 5


8

Intimate friends, at restaurant: 3 girls, age: 20, 20, 26


9

Taxi driver (M, age: ± 50), client (F, adult, Aymara ethnic)


10

Hair dresser (F, age: ± 35), client (F, age:6)

Research questions

1. What is the unmarked ToA in Chile, according to situation?

2. How frequent is interactional shifting?

3. Is shifting as frequent in all types of situations? E.g. between intimates vs. between strangers

4. Who shifts? vs. who does not shift?, according to interlocutors’ age & gender

5. What are the most frequent shifting schemes?

6. What is the frequency of shifting schemes vs. exclusive ToAs?

11

Corpus material

• Audio recordings

• Linguist = absent / participant observer

• Spontaneous, informal conversations

• Two main contexts: intimates (friends) vs. strangers (public service encounters)

12

Friends: all age groups Public service encounters

Children (age < 14): on schoolbus Market

Youngsters (age 20-26): at university, at restaurant, house visit

Corner shop

Young adults (age 30-36): house visit, while going out

Hair dresser

Older people (age > 70): house visit, social meeting

Collective taxi

Corpus material

Situation Duration Words Verbal ToAs Relations

Friends 10:03:34 97.009 1.921 226

Service 18:27:06 93.893 1.790 203

Total 28:30:40 190.902 3.711 429

13

Each arrow = 1 relation

RQ1.

What is the unmarked ToA in Chile,

according to situation?

14

Hypothesis

Friends: V dominates

Service: U dominates

(Stevenson 2006; Torrejón 1991, 2010)

15

Results: global frequency

Friends vs. Service

16

Ve-U 9%

Ve-T 56%

Ve-V 35% Ve-U

43%

Ve-T 27%

Ve-V 30%

Results: separating impt. & pret.si.

Friends vs. Service

17

U 10%

T 26%

V 63%

U 39%

T 16%

V 45%

U 58%

T /V 42%

Imperativo

U 8,8%

T/V91% V

0,2%

Imperativo

U 6%

T/V 94%

Pret.simple

U 28%

Pret.simple

T/V 72%

Conclusion Friends: V clearly dominates: hypothesis confirmed

Service: hypothesis not confirmed

In general: V dominates unexpectedly, V (45%) > U (39%) > T (16%)

Pret. simple: T/V dominates unexpectedly (72%)

Imperative: U dominates (58%)

Suggestion:

Impt.≈more U : face threatening speech act respectful U=mitigates

Between strangers: quick shift from formal (dist.) informal (prox.)

To indicate distance vs. proximity:

Between friends: T vs. V

Between seller-client : U vs. V

Decrease of T in Chilean system

18

RQ2.

How frequent is interactional shifting?

RQ3.

Is shifting as frequent in all types of situations?

19

Hypothesis

A lot of shifting in Chilean Spanish (Hummel 2010)

Shifting: friends > service

Why less in service?:

- more transactional, less creative

- more risk for face threat

= maintenance of conventionalized exclusive U-U

20

Results

Friends vs. Service (Freq. of relations)

21

yes 69% no

31%

yes 46%

no 54%

Conclusion

• A lot of shifting (69%, 46%): hyp. confirmed

• Friends > service: hyp. confirmed

But: shifting still unexpectedly frequent in ‘service’

Suggestion:

Quick shift from U V?

22

RQ4.

Who shifts? vs. Who does not shift?

(≈ interlocutors’ age & gender)

23

Hypothesis

Age:

Youngsters shift more?

More to interl. of same generation?

Gender:

More to interl. of same sex?

24

Results

Shifting ≈ Gender of speaker Shifting ≈ Age of speaker

25

57 60

43 40

0

20

40

60

80

100

F M

sí

no

62 69

54 60

38 31

46 40

0

20

40

60

80

100

Children Young Adults Older

sí

no

Results

26

Friends:

Results

27

Friends (freq. of relations):

Results

28

Friends (freq. of relations):

Results

29

Service (freq. of relations):

Conclusion

30

Age:

Youngsters shift more hyp. confirmed, but not significantly More to interl. of same generation hyp. not confirmed (only less to older generations)

Suggestion: To same/younger age = speaker in equalitarian/superior

position = less risk for face threat

Gender:

More to interl. of same sex confirmed!

RQ5.

What are the most frequent shifting schemes?

31

Hypothesis

Friends: T V

(Rivadeneira 2010, Stevenson 2006, Torrejón 2010)

Service: U T ?

(Torrejón 1991)

32

Results

33

Scheme Relations

# %

V > T 49 43,8

T-V 16 14,3

U + T + V 12 10,7

T > V 11 9,8

U > T 5 4,5

U > V 5 4,5

T > U 4 3,6

T-U 4 3,6

U-V 4 3,6

V > U 2 1,8

10 types 112 100%

V > T 43,8%

T-V 14,3%

U + T + V 10,7% T > V 9,8% U > T 4,5%

U > V 4,5%

T > U 3,6%

T-U 3,6%

U-V 3,6%

V > U 1,8%

Excl. impt. & pret.si. forms

Results

34

Scheme Relations

# %

V > T 49 43,8

T-V 16 14,3

U + T + V 12 10,7

T > V 11 9,8

U > T 5 4,5

U > V 5 4,5

T > U 4 3,6

T-U 4 3,6

U-V 4 3,6

V > U 2 1,8

10 types 112 100%

V > T 43,8%

T-V 14,3%

U + T + V 10,7% T > V 9,8% U > T 4,5%

U > V 4,5%

T > U 3,6%

T-U 3,6%

U-V 3,6%

V > U 1,8%

Excl. impt. & pret.si. forms

Results Friends vs. Service

35

Scheme Relations

# %

V > T 36 51,4

T-V 13 18,6

T > V 8 11,4

U + T + V 4 5,7

U > T 3 4,3

U > V 2 2,9

T > U 2 2,9

T-U 2 2,9

8 types 70 100%

Scheme Relations

# %

V > T 13 31,0

U + T + V 8 19,0

U-V 4 9,5

T > V 3 7,1

U > V 3 7,1

T-V 3 7,1

V > U 2 4,8

U > T 2 4,8

T > U 2 4,8

T-U 2 4,8

10 types 42 100%

V > T 51,4%

T-V 18,6%

T > V 11,4%

U+T+V 5,7%

U > T 4,3%

U > V 2,9%

T > U 2,9%

T-U 2,9%

V > T 31,0%

U+T+V 19,0% U-V

9,5% T > V 7,1%

U > V 7,1%

T-V 7,1%

V > U 4,8%

U > T 4,8%

T > U 4,8%

T-U 4,8%

Conclusion

36

Friends: V>T / T-V / T>V: 81,4% hyp. confirmed

Service: U>T / T>U / T-U: 14,4% hyp. not confirmed

Suggestion:

In general: U+T+V 11% culture of shifting

Service: V>T 31%: dependent on type of service relation?

Service: U-V / U>V / V>U 21%, no intermediate T decrease of T in Chilean system

RQ6.

What is the frequency of

shifting schemes vs. exclusive ToAs?

37

Hypothesis

Friends: T V?

Based on observed cases in literature & experience

Service: exclusive U?

Because: considerable risk for face threat, interl. follow

conventionalized U-U

38

Results Friends Service

excl. V > excl. U* > excl. T excl. U > excl. V > excl. T

39

Scheme Relations

# %

excl. V 37 28,0

V > T 36 27,3

excl. U* 13 9,8

T-V 13 9,8

excl. T 12 9,1

T > V 8 6,1

U + T + V 4 3,0

U > T 3 2,3

U > V 2 1,5

T > U 2 1,5

T-U 2 1,5

11 types 132 100%

Scheme Relations

# %

excl. U 62 53,9

V > T 13 11,3

excl. V 9 7,8

U + T + V 8 7,0

U-V 4 3,5

T > V 3 2,6

U > V 3 2,6

T-V 3 2,6

excl. T 2 1,7

V > U 2 1,7

U > T 2 1,7

T > U 2 1,7

T-U 2 1,7

13 types 115 100% Excl. impt. & pret.si. forms

Scheme Relations

# %

excl. V 37 28,0

V > T 36 27,3

excl. U* 13 9,8

T-V 13 9,8

excl. T 12 9,1

T > V 8 6,1

U + T + V 4 3,0

U > T 3 2,3

U > V 2 1,5

T > U 2 1,5

T-U 2 1,5

11 types 132 100%

Scheme Relations

# %

excl. U 62 53,9

V > T 13 11,3

excl. V 9 7,8

U + T + V 8 7,0

U-V 4 3,5

T > V 3 2,6

U > V 3 2,6

T-V 3 2,6

excl. T 2 1,7

V > U 2 1,7

U > T 2 1,7

T > U 2 1,7

T-U 2 1,7

13 types 115 100%

Results Friends Service excl. V > excl. U* > excl. T excl. U > excl. V > excl.

T

40

excl. V

V > T

excl. U T-V

excl. T

T > V T + U +

V

U > T

U > V

T > U

T-U

excl. U

V > T

excl. V

U + T + V

U-V

T > V

U > V T-V

excl. T V > U

U > T

T > U

T-U

Scheme Relations

# %

excl. V 37 28,0

V > T 36 27,3

excl. U* 13 9,8

T-V 13 9,8

excl. T 12 9,1

T > V 8 6,1

U + T + V 4 3,0

U > T 3 2,3

U > V 2 1,5

T > U 2 1,5

T-U 2 1,5

11 types 132 100%

Scheme Relations

# %

excl. U 62 53,9

V > T 13 11,3

excl. V 9 7,8

U + T + V 8 7,0

U-V 4 3,5

T > V 3 2,6

U > V 3 2,6

T-V 3 2,6

excl. T 2 1,7

V > U 2 1,7

U > T 2 1,7

T > U 2 1,7

T-U 2 1,7

13 types 115 100%


T

41

excl. V

V > T

excl. U T-V

excl. T

T > V T + U +

V

U > T

U > V

T > U

T-U

excl. U

V > T

excl. V

U + T + V

U-V

T > V

U > V T-V

excl. T V > U

U > T

T > U

T-U

Scheme Relations

# %

excl. V 37 28,0

V > T 36 27,3

excl. U* 13 9,8

T-V 13 9,8

excl. T 12 9,1

T > V 8 6,1

U + T + V 4 3,0

U > T 3 2,3

U > V 2 1,5

T > U 2 1,5

T-U 2 1,5

11 types 132 100%

Scheme Relations

# %

excl. U 62 53,9

V > T 13 11,3

excl. V 9 7,8

U + T + V 8 7,0

U-V 4 3,5

T > V 3 2,6

U > V 3 2,6

T-V 3 2,6

excl. T 2 1,7

V > U 2 1,7

U > T 2 1,7

T > U 2 1,7

T-U 2 1,7

13 types 115 100%


T

42

excl. V

V > T

excl. U T-V

excl. T

T > V T + U +

V

U > T

U > V

T > U

T-U

excl. U

V > T

excl. V

U + T + V

U-V

T > V

U > V T-V

excl. T V > U

U > T

T > U

T-U

Conclusion

43

Friends: excl. V dominates hyp. ± not confirmed

Service: exclusive U clearly dominates hyp. confirmed, but still V unexpectedly frequent

Suggestion: Increase of V in Chile Service Short interactions: excl. U Longer interactions: quickly negotiation for more

proximity

Final conclusions

44

Chile “a culture of change of address”: yes!

Shifting = not arbitrary

E.g. frequency dependent on situation

E.g. certain schemes more frequent

E.g. Interlocutors’ gender seems strong factor

T seems to decrease in Chilean system

45

Further questions (what?, who?, how?)

• Lenght of conversation

• (No) power ≈ (no) possibility to shift

• Other situations (family, colleagues, religious meeting &

social board meeting)

• Combination with pron. & nominal ToAs

46

Further questions (why?)

• Discursive-pragmatic parameters:

Discursive distance of shifts (within act vs. intervention vs.

dialogue vs. contact)

Ling./soc. agreement (shared vs. other comm. goal)

Type of speech act

Type of facework (maintain, mitigate, value, threaten)

Emotional reaction of interlocutor

Suggestions??

47

References

Hummel, Martin (2010): “Reflexiones metodológicas y teóricas sobre el estudio de las formas de tratamiento en el mundo hispanohablante, a partir de una investigación en Santiago de chile”, in: Hummel Martin/Kluge, Bettina/Vázquez Laslop, María Eugenia (eds.): Formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en el mundo hispánico. México D.F./Graz: El Colegio de México/Karl Franzens Universität: 101-162.

Rivadeneira Valenzuela, Marcela (2009): El voseo en medios de comunicación de Chile. Descricpión y análisis de la variación dialectal y funcional. PhD dissertation. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

Stevenson, Jeffrey (2007): The sociolinguistic variables of Chilean voseo. PhD dissertation. Seattle: University of Washington.

Torrejón, Alfredo (1991): “Fórmulas de tratamiento de 2ª persona singular en el español de Chile”, in: Hispania 74, 4: 1068-76.

—(2010): “Nuevas observaciones sobre el voseo en el español de Chile”, en: Hummel, Martin/Kluge, Bettina/Vázquez Laslop, María Eugenia (eds.): Formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en el mundo hispánico. México D.F./Graz: El Colegio de México/Karl Franzens Universität: 755-770.

48

Thank you for your attention!

Questions, remarks or suggestions? Just ask or mail me

[email protected]

49

On explaining interactional shifts between the three terms of address in everyday situations in Chilean Spanish

Documents