Keywords
Pragmatics
Sociolinguistic Variation
Interlanguage
Acquisition order
variación lingüística
pragmática
variación sociolingüística
interlenguaje
orden de adquisición
How to Cite
Abstract
Spanish second-person personal pronouns are prescriptively known and recognized in most varieties of Spanish as informal for túand formal for usted(you [sg.] and you [sg.]), including the pedagogical variety taught as a foreign or second language. Although vosexists as a third form in some varieties of Spanish, the present study focuses on the former two because they are the ones present in textbooks of Spanish as a foreign language. The present work studies variation found in the social deixis (i.e., relationships from the egocentric, the self, the perspective of the speaker) and explores the choices second language learners, as well as native speakers of Spanish, make when choosing between these two pronouns. A modified computerized discourse completion test, which makes use of audio, video, and text, was used to elicit participants´ responses to eight scenarios in a more naturalistic way. It included variables that have been shown to affect participants’ choices as well as variables that have not yet been studied such as participants’ personality and clothing. Findings of the present study suggest that linguistic, pragmatic, and/or social variables are not the only ones that influence L2 learners’ and native speakers’ choices about pronouns of address. Results show that psychological variables such as personality and visual cues such as outfit are influential in both L2 learners’ and native speakers’ choices. The aforementioned findings have implications as to how educators approach the teaching of these forms to facilitate their use and acquisition in natural and instruction settings, especially in a learner-centered, proficiency- oriented classroom.
References
Aguilar-Sánchez, J. (2004). A revised approach to teaching the English tense and aspect system based on empirical evidence from the field of second language acquisition and critical review of current pedagogical practice. (M.A.), Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1993). Refining the DCT: Comparing open questionnaires and dialogue completion tasks. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 4, 143-165.
Belz, J., & Kinginger, C. (2002). The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: Two case studies. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(2), 189-214.
Belz, J. A., & Kinginger, C. (2003). Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: The case of ad dress forms. Language Learning, 53(4), 591-647.
Blum, S., & Levenston, E. A. (1978). Universals of lexical simplification. Language Learning, 28(2), 399-415. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1978.tb00143.x
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, III(1), 29-59. doi:10.1093/applin/III.1.29
Brown, D. (1975). The use of “tú” and “usted” with parents by some Mexican American students. Hispania, 58(1), 126-127.
Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 253-276). Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press.
Butt, J., & Bejamin, C. (1988). Personal pronouns. In J. Butt, & C. Benjamin (Eds.), A new reference grammar of modern Spanish (2nd ed., Chap. 11, pp. 102-133). New York: Edward Arnold.
Costa, P., McCrae, R. R., & PAR-staff. (1999). NEO five-factor inventory [Web Page]. Retrieved from http://www.acer.edu.au/publications/newsletters/Psych_LiveWire/Issue_4_Sep04/documents/NEO_FFIclient_000.pdf [2004, September 15].
Díaz-Campos, M. (2004). Acquisition of sociolinguistic variables in Spanish: Do children acquire individual lexical forms or variable rules? In T. Face (Ed.), Laboratory approaches to Spanish phonology (pp. 221-236). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Díaz-Campos, M. (2003). The pluaralization of haber in Venezuelan Spanish: A sociolinguistic change in real time. IULC Working Papers, 3, 175-187.
Gomez Torrego, L. (1996). El pronombre. In L. Gomez Torrego (Ed.), Manual de español correcto (7th ed., Vol. II, Chap. 4, pp. 65-140). Madrid: Editorial ARCO/LIBROS, S. L.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman, 1976.
Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in second language acquisition, 13, 215-247.
Koike, D. A., Pearson, L., & Witten, C. (2003). Pragmatics and discourse analysis in Spanish second language acquisition research and pedagogy. In B. A. Lafford, & M. R. Salaberry (Eds.), Spanish second language acquisition: State of the science (pp. 160-187). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Johnson, D. E. (2009). Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 359-383.
Lafford, B. A., & Uscinski, I. (2013). Study abroad and second language Spanish. In K. L. Geeslin, The handbook of Spanish second language acquisition (pp. 386-403): John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Lee, J. F. (2000). Tasks and communicating in language classrooms. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Lee, J. F., & Benati, A. G. (2007). Second language processing: An analysis of theory, problems, and possible solutions. London; New York, NY: Continuum.
Lee, J. F., & Benati, A. G. (2009). Research and perspectives on processing instruction. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lee, J. F., & Benati, A. G. (2013). Individual differences and processing instruction. Sheffield, UK: Equinox Pub.
Lee, J. F., & Valdman, A. (2000). Form and meaning: Multiple perspectives. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Michnowicz, J., Despain, J. S., & Gorham, R. (2016). The changing system of Costa Rican pronouns of address. In M. I. Moyna & S. Rivera-Mills (Eds.), Forms of Address in the Spanish of the Americas (pp. 243-266). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Moyna, M. a. I., & Rivera-Mills, S. V. (2016). Forms of address in the Spanish of the Americas. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Oquendo, E. (Unpublished work, Indiana University). Interlanguage pragmatics and the effects of setting.
Rehner, K., Mougeon, R., & Nadasdi, T. (2003). The learning of sociolinguistic variation by advanced FSL learners: The case of nous versus on in immersion French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 127-156.
Rossomondo, A. (2002). Pronominal address forms in Madrid. In J. F. Lee, K. L. Geeslin, & J. C. Clements (Eds.), Structure, meaning, and acquisition in Spanish: Papers from the 4th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 115- 129). Somerville: Cascadilla Press.
Sankoff, D., Tagliamonte, S. A., & Smith, E. (2005). Goldvarb X: A variable rule application for Macintosh and Windows. Toronto: Department of Linguistics University of Toronto.
Schwenter, S. A. (1993). Diferenciación dialectal por medio de pronombres: Una comparación del uso de tú y usted en España y México [Dialectal differentiation caused by pronouns: A comparison between the usage of tú and usted in Spain and Mexico] . Nueva Revista de Filología Hispana, 41, 127-149.
Tagliamonte, S. A. (2006). Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Uber, D. R. (2000). “Addressing” business in Puerto Rico: Tú vs. usted. In A. Roca (Ed.), Research on Spanish in the U.S. (pp. 310-218). Somerville, A: Cascadilla Press.