Irene María Moyna

Address variation as a mitigation strategy in Uruguayan Spanish

This study aims to ascertain the role of pragmatic force on informal address variation in Uruguayan Spanish (USp) (standard vs. vernacular vos). It does so by comparing address choice in directive speech acts (request, suggestion, order). Voseo was found to be most frequent in commands and least frequent in requests, with suggestions falling somewhere between. There was also a strong effect for addressee gender, with higher voseo frequency with males. This study thus demonstrates the quantifiable effect of pragmatics on informal address choice.

In its small territory, Uruguay presents a complex informal address system, including pronominal and verbal voseo (VV), a hybrid combination (TV), and tuteo (TT), whose use is determined by regional, social, and gender variables (Behares 1981, Bertolotti 2011, Bertolotti & Coll 2003, Elizaincín & Díaz 1979, 1981, Mendoza 2005, Moyna & Ceballos 2008, Rona 1967, Steffen 2010). Studies of similar dialects (e.g., Argentina) have also shown the role of pragmatics on negative commands, with voseo being preferred for cessatives and tuteo for prohibitives (no cantes ‘don’t singT’ vs. no cantés ‘stop singingV’) (Johnson & Grinstead 2011, Johnson 2016).

The main research question of this study was whether voseo and tuteo use in affirmative directives is also influenced by pragmatics. To find out, 679 respondents from all across Uruguay completed a questionnaire that required them to choose responses for hypothetical situations (1). Six items were pairs of requests, suggestions, and orders; all items corresponded to informal relationships, and in each case, one addressee was male and one female. Responses were quantified to establish the effect on address choice of a range of independent variables (speech act, speaker provenance, age, gender, education level, addressee gender). As expected, speech act and addressee gender were statistically significant predictors of voseo/tuteo choice, suggesting that pragmatic differences between the two forms go beyond the context identified by Johnson.