Similar to other voseante varieties, Chilean Spanish has garnered much attention among researchers interested in forms of address because of its tripartite system in which voseante, tuteante, and ustedeante forms—all akin to English you and its corresponding inflections—are available to speakers to address single interlocutors. Using mostly questionnaire and/or interview methodologies, studies in this strand of literature show that the form selected by speakers and the form with which their interlocutors respond depend primarily on the relationship between them and the situational context. For instance, in everyday, ordinary talk, voseante forms are supposed to be reciprocal among siblings, whereas one is expected to address grandparents with ustedeante terms while receiving tuteante ones from them (e.g., Bishop & Michnowicz, 2010; Valencia, 2006). In institutional talk, tuteante forms are supposed to be reciprocal among coworkers, whereas one is supposed to address superiors with ustedeante terms while receiving tuteante ones from them (e.g., Hummel, 2010; Kluge, 2005). As can be seen, as a result of the methodologies adopted, most of the above-cited studies appear to assign one form to one person in one context.

Following the interactional approach outlined by Gumperz (2001) and using various excerpts of Chilean Spanish data gathered from recorded family conversations, casual chats between friends, and formal discussions in professional settings, I here show that, in interactions with one person in one of these contexts, it is quite common for one person to alternate between forms of address in order to project identities associated with the perceived semantic meanings of these forms and accomplish specific pragmatic functions. This observation builds on prior research that has observed this phenomenon in other varieties of Spanish (e.g., Blas Arroyo, 2005; Raymond, 2016). More generally, it supports focusing on contextually situated, in-the-moment interactions to assign semantic value to forms of address.

References

• Bishop, K., & Michnowicz, J. (2010). Forms of address in Chilean Spanish. Hispania, 93(3), 413-429.
• Blas Arroyo, J. L. (2005). Sociolingüística del español: desarrollos y perspectivas en el estudio de la lengua española en contexto social. Madrid: Cátedra.
• Gumperz, J. J. (2001). Interactional sociolinguistics: a personal perspective. In D. Schriffin, D.Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 215-228). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Hummel, M. (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 M. Hummel, B. Kluge, & M. E. Vázquez Laslop (Eds.), Formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en el mundo hispánico (pp. 101-162). México, D.F.: El Colegio de México.
• Kluge, B. (2005). Las fórmulas de tratamiento en un corpus chileno. In V. Noll, K. Zimmermann, & I. Neuman-Holzchuh (Eds.), El español en América. Aspectos teóricos, particularidades, contactos (pp. 169-188). Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert.
• Raymond, C. W. (2016). Linguistic reference in the negotiation of identity and action: revisiting the T/V distinction. Language, 92(3), 636-670.
• Valencia, A. (2006). Formas pronominales de tratamiento en Santiago de Chile. In M. Sedano, A.Bolívar, & M. Shiro (Coords.), Haciendo lingüística: homenaje a Paola Bentivoglio (pp.569-582). Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela.