27.1393, Review: Historical Ling; Morphology; Pragmatics; Socioling: Díaz Collazos (2015)

Mon Mar 21 21:15:32 UTC 2016

LINGUIST List: Vol-27-1393. Mon Mar 21 2016. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 27.1393, Review: Historical Ling; Morphology; Pragmatics; Socioling: Díaz Collazos (2015)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry, Sara Couture)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                   25 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Sara  Couture <sara at linguistlist.org>
================================================================

Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:14:53
From: Charles Mortensen [chaz_mortensen at sil.org]
Subject: Desarrollo sociolingüístico del voseo en la región andina de Colombia (1555–1976) [Sociolinguistic Development of Voseo in the Andean Region of Colombia]

Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36107557

Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/26/26-2253.html

AUTHOR: Ana María Díaz Collazos
TITLE: Desarrollo sociolingüístico del voseo en la región andina de Colombia (1555–1976) [Sociolinguistic Development of Voseo in the Andean Region of Colombia]
SERIES TITLE: De Gruyter Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 392
PUBLISHER: De Gruyter Mouton
YEAR: 2015

REVIEWER: Charles A Mortensen, Summer Institute of Linguistics / SIL International

Reviews Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

The purpose of Desarrollo Sociolingüístico del Voseo en la Región Andina de
Colombia (1555-1976), by Ana María Díaz Collazos, is to trace the development
of the second-person singular pronoun 'vos'  in the Spanish of four Andean
regions of Colombia. ‘Vos’ was developed from the second-person plural form in
Latin but by the 16th century it had become a prestige singular form in
Spanish. Use was extended to formally address persons of any social class in
the New World and for this reason it eventually lost its prestige. In areas
with heavy influence from Spain, the pronoun ‘tú’ took its place for more
intimate conversation, even as the new upper class in the colonies insisted on
forms of address like ‘vuestra merced’ and others, which have led to the
development of the modern ‘usted’. All of this meant that 'vos' fell into
apparent disuse for almost 200 years except, presumably, among the lower class
in isolated areas which had little contact with Spanish rule. The resurgence
of 'vos' since the 19th century is attributed to national pride after
independence from Spain, namely in Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, most of
Central America and certain regions of Colombia.

In order to trace the use of 'vos', Díaz-Collazos and her team consulted
documents from three periods of Colombian history: letters and literary works
from the 16th and 17th centuries, archives from the 18th century, when 'vos'
is apparently absent from literary sources, and literary works from the 19th
century on, when 'vos' makes a reappearance (p. 1). They evaluate how 'vos' is
used in each instance and classify the use based on the social class of the
interlocutors and the intent of the communication. Some of the  categories are
that of respect, lack of courtesy, romance, familial use, overly familiar
uses, excessive social distance, or reverential use (p. 23). These
classifications are used for each period and for each region of Colombia
selected: Nariño/Cauca (far southwest), Cauca Valley (interior southwest),
Antioquia (interior northwest) and Cundinamarca/Boyacá (central plateau),
where Bogotá is located. The results are displayed clearly in tables in each
chapter. 

Díaz-Collazos has used a corpus-based method in order to discount popular
theories, such as the belief that Colombians only recently adopted 'vos' in
order to emulate Argentinian soccer players and announcers.

After introducing her method and scope in the first chapter, Díaz-Collazos
presents more detail on the progression of 'vos' from a Latin plural to a
Spanish ‘pluralis majestatis’ to a standard singular. The need for solidarity
in the new colonies brought the pronoun from being an honorific form to a sign
of egalitarianism (p. 44). At the same time, the loss of intervocalic d in
certain verb forms led to conflation and confusion of ‘tú’ and 'vos'
conjugations. A wide variety of divergent forms are cited from different parts
of Latin America. The current conjugation of 'vos' was not generalized until
the 19th century (p. 138).

In the third chapter Díaz-Collazos declares 1657 as the year of greatest
extent of 'vos', as it is employed for both formal and informal situations.
Then, as Spanish immigration increased both from Perú and Ecuador in the
southwest as well as from the Caribbean Coast in the north, the public use of
‘tú’ increased as well (p. 85); in Colombia 'vos' became limited to private
use. In colonies where Spanish vice-regnal centers were established early on,
such as Lima and México, 'vos' disappeared altogether.

The fourth chapter covers the ''latent period'', that is from the late 17th
century to the early 19th century. ‘Vos’ is virtually unsubstantiated in the
literature of the time while ‘tú’ becomes the pronoun of choice. Citing one
court document, Díaz-Collazos theorizes that ‘tú’  was the written form of
'vos', as is currently the case in Honduras (p. 136). Additionally, 'vos'
could be misunderstood as an impolite form of address, so ‘tú’  was employed
to remove any doubt. By this time Buenos Aires and Bogotá had become
vice-regnal centers as well, but their linguistic diversity was sufficient to
slow down the advance of the Spanish ‘tú’ . At any rate,‘tú’  became a more
respectful form of familiar speech among the upper classes.

In the fifth chapter we enter the contemporary period of 'vos' usage.
Díaz-Collazos describes 1828-1890 as a time of transition. The different
republics in Latin America declared their independence from Spain early in the
19th century and Colombia solidified its position as a republic with an
improved constitution in 1886. While there is only sporadic employment of
'vos' in the literature, the use of accent marks is regularized in order to
denote where its verb forms differ from those of ‘tú’ . At the turn of the
20th century, Castilian Spanish is seen as the linguistic ideal in Colombia
but regional variants (some of which employ 'vos'; see below) were portrayed
as part of the national heritage. The rural upper class adopted 'vos' as an
expression of power over the lower class (p. 168) and this became stereotyped
by city dwellers, especially in Bogotá, as the way in which country people
talked when they moved to the cities. Movement was accelerated in during the
period known as La Violencia (1948-1960). Accordingly, stigmatization of 'vos'
increased in the cities to the point where even rural speakers avoided it. 

The lengthy fifth chapter also documents the varying usage of 'vos' in
different parts of Colombia as well as in Argentina. The repressive Rosas
regime there is described in literature as using 'vos' as a pronoun of power;
'vos' represents the ''dark side.'' It is also characterized as being bad
Spanish and infantile speech and Colombian grammarians condemn it. In
Cundinamarca and Boyacá, 'vos' indicates the actual status of the speaker,
usually from a rural area. In Nariño/Cauca it characterizes city speech,
whereas in Antioquia it indicates the speaker's status relative to someone
else. It may be used there to distinguish local people from outsiders; this is
Díaz-Collazos' opinion. She admits that by the 1970s, authors began to employ
'vos' for their own rhetorical purposes, so modern literature is no longer a
true indicator of language use (p. 166). This is presumably why the study uses
no examples from after 1976.

A different type of 'voseo' (use of 'vos') is presented in the sixth chapter,
reverential 'vos'. While used in the 1500s among fellow Catholics, it was
common in the 17th and 18th centuries as part of administrative titles. In
spite of the independence movement from Spain, literature remained
conservative and flowery to the point of its use in neoclassical poetry and
drama. In at least one remake of El Cid, the archaic form ‘convusco’ (''with
you'') has been updated to 'con vos' (p. 255). Since ‘tú’  and 'vos' have the
opposite roles in drama versus vernacular speech (p. 246), Díaz-Collazos
insists that reverential 'vos' is a distinct pronoun from the normal 'vos'. I
am not sure that this is a point she needs to make. 

Chapter Seven is a well-organized review of the study, methodology and
results. 

EVALUATION

By ample if not exhaustive use of the Colombian corpus, Díaz-Collazos has more
than disproven the myth that 'vos' is some dangerous invasion from Argentina
or Spain (where it was first abandoned!) The study has adequately documented
the history of the usage of 'vos' in Colombia and the social and historical
reasons for changes in prestige of the available second-person pronouns. 

One question that the book does not address is why the use of 'vos' was
abandoned early on in Spain. Another point to ponder is the perception in
Colombia that those of Antioquia (capital Medellín) speak most like the
Spanish of Europe, yet maintain the use of 'vos', which is virtually unknown
in Europe. An area where improvement is needed is in the editing, as there are
no less than eighteen misspelled words and at least seven punctuation errors. 

Finally, the prose in this volume reflects the formal academic Spanish of
Bogotá, with its beautifully flowing phrases and the richest vocabulary. Those
interested in the history of the Spanish language will enjoy this volume,
especially if they have had any contact with Colombians or those who use 'vos'
as part of their everyday speech.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Charles Mortensen is a linguist and Bible translation consultant with SIL
International and has worked in Colombia, Panama and Guatemala researching
indigenous languages and assisting in Bible translation projects. His
interests are historical linguistics, linguistic typology and theology.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-27-1393	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.org/