3056Estudos de Lingüística GalegaELG1889-25661989-578XUniversidade de Santiago de CompostelaEspañaelgilg@usc.es8265https://doi.org/10.15304/elg.14.8265PescudaThe system of pronouns of address in MadeiraO sistema dos pronomes de tratamento em MadeiraLara BermejoVíctor1aUCA / CELGA-ILTEC Universidade de CoimbraUniversidade de CoimbraPortugalaviktoresc@hotmail.comEnero-Diciembre2022141702202225042022https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) LicenseAbstract
The system of forms and pronouns of address in European Portuguese presents great variation throughout the entire country. Although a tripartite and a bipartite paradigm exists in singular and plural, respectively, the dialect reality provides a more complex system that depends on geo and socio-linguistic factors. Despite the most recent studies on this phenomenon, there is little information about the actual usage of pronouns of address in the archipelagos. In this paper, I aim to pinpoint the current paradigm of pronouns of address in Madeira, by also establishing its geolinguistic, sociolinguistic, pragmatic and grammatical constraints, thanks to a quantitative corpus stemming from specific fieldwork. The main results show the elimination of vós as plural, the extension of vocês and its 3pl agreement pattern, as well as various pragmatic changes in progress regarding the conception of family and the spread of pragmatic solidarity.
Resumo
O sistema de formas de tratamento em português europeu apresenta uma grande variação por todo o país. Embora exista um paradigna tripartito em singular e um bipartito em plural, a realidade dialetal fornece um sistema mais complexo que depende de fatores geolinguísticos e sociolinguísticos. Apesar dos estudos mais recentes sobre este fenómeno, carecemos de informação acerca do uso real dos ponomes de tratamento nos arquipélagos. Neste artigo, pretendo estabelecer o paradigma atual de pronomes de tratamento na Madeira, determinando igualmente as restrições geolinguísticas, sociolinguísticas, pragmáticas e gramaticais, graças a um corpus quantitativo que provém de levantamento de dados. Os resultados mostram a eliminação de vós plural, a extensão de vocês e a concordância de 3pl, além de várias mudanças pragmáticas em curso que afetam a conceição da família e a difusão da solidariedade pragmática.
KeywordsEuropean PortugueseMadeirapronouns of addressdialectologypolitenessPalavras-chavePortuguês europeuMadeirapronomes de tratamentodialetologiacortesiaSummary
The system of continental Portugal.
The system of Madeira
Theoretical framework, corpus and methodology
Data
Analysis
Geolinguistics
Sociolinguistics.
Pragmatics
The usage of vós
Address within the family.
The usage of você and null subject + 3sg.
Tendency towards solidarity.
Grammatical behaviour.
Objects and oblique: stressed pronouns, dative and the prepositional phrase.
Extension of the 3pl anchoring vocês.
The loss of vós.
Conclusions.
Sumário
O sistema de Portugal continental.
O sistema da Madeira.
Marco teórico, corpus e metodologia.
Dados
Análise
Geolinguística.
Sociolinguística
Pragmática.
O uso de vós.
Tratamento na família.
O uso de você e o sujeito nulo + 3sg.
Tendência à solidariedade.
Comportamento gramatical.
Objetos e oblíquos: pronomes tónicos, dativos e sintagmas preposicionais.
Extensão da 3pl com referência vocês.
A perda de vós.
Conclusões
1. THE SYSTEM OF CONTINENTAL PORTUGAL
The system of pronouns of address in Portuguese is known because of its complexity. Apart from the differences among dialect varieties, we lack empirical data with respect to some. Specifically, European Portuguese exhibits a system that, according to Cunha & Cintra (1992), Mira Mateus et al. (2006), Raposo et al. (2020) and Lara Bermejo (in press), opposes a tripartite paradigm in singular to a bipartite one in plural, except in the northernmost areas of Portugal (Table 1).
Current system of address in European Portuguese
T
N
V
Singular
Tu + 2sg
Você + 3sg
Null subject + 3sg
Noun phrase + 3sg
O senhor / a senhora
+ 3sg
Noun phrase + 3sg
Plural
Vós + 2pl (north)
Vocês + 2pl / 3pl
Vocês + 2pl / 3pl
Os senhores / as
senhoras + 3pl
Based on Table 1, tu plus 2sg inflections are used for intimate contexts, while o senhor / a senhora plus 3sg is resorted to for formal situations, though it can also be followed by a noun phrase, such as professional status. In the middle of both, there emerge the so-called N contexts (Cook 2019), which are conceived as those informal or semi-formal situations, but in which a T form is extremely impolite and a formal one is too courteous. This in-between degree swings among a number of possibilities, such as the pronoun você plus 3sg as well as the strategy of using null subject plus 3sg or resorting to noun phrases plus 3sg, among which proper names and professional statuses stand out.
However, the plural is more syncretic, for it envisages os senhores / as senhoras plus 3pl for V contexts and gathers in vocês for other diaphasic situations. Only the northernmost districts in Portugal still present vós plus 2pl for T contexts. In addition, vós can also appear throughout Portugal in a number of specific reverential and stereotyped contexts: church, army and parliament. Moreover, it is necessary to make clear that vocês induces a double agreement pattern, since by depending on the syntactic elements that anchor it, it can prompt 2pl and 3pl inflections. Based on the standard, the 3pl appears in verbs and reflexives whereas the 2pl is established in objects and possessives.
The paradigm depicted in Table 1 is the standard and prestigious model in modern-day Portugal. Nevertheless, Lara Bermejo (2018a, 2020a) and Lara Bermejo & Guilherme (2021) demonstrate that, from a variationist perspective, this country envisages further alternatives for formality. Rural and isolated areas in the interior and southern districts of continental Portugal are characterised by also relying on archaic forms, such as vossemecê(s) or vomecê(s), to address somebody politely. This resource is limited to people from low educational backgrounds and, mainly, the elderly. As a matter of fact, this strategy has been in increasing disuse since the late 1900s, by favouring the employment of the standard o(s) senhor(es) and their corresponding alternatives based on gender.
There is even an ulterior feature that is worthy of mention: the inadequacy of você as a singular pronoun. According to Faria (2009) and Lara Bermejo & Guilherme (2018), the usage of você is avoided because it can be evaluated as formal (V), informal (T), neutral (N), and to some extent, offensive. Fear of committing a face-threatening act (one that is impolite or contradictory to the one expected in a given situation) on the part of the addresser leads to its elimination and to resort to the so-called null subject plus 3sg. This alternative is, in the view of Carreira (2003), the most extended form of addressing someone in a neutral context. Nonetheless, when a subject needs to be made explicit, speakers tend to produce an array of noun phrases, such as the profession (professor, engineer…) or proper name of the addressee.
The greatest change in progress that occurs in plural concerns the pronoun vocês. Despite the fact that vós plus 2pl was useful for centuries to address a group of people in an informal or intimate context, there has been an expansion of vocês to the detriment of vós for this same type of situation. However, vocês is syntactically 3pl and, depending on the region within Portugal, induces 2pl in part of its inflectional elements. The study carried out by Lara Bermejo (2020a) determines that, when vocês ousts vós as a stressed pronoun, its 3pl inflection starts spreading throughout the paradigm in a gradual way, adhering to the following hierarchy: subject > reflexive / verb > accusative > dative > possessive. The emergence of the 3pl with reference to vocês is at a different stage of this continuum and has now completed the hierarchy in the south-easternmost area, in the Alentejo and Algarve zone that borders Spain. Nowadays, vocês has not ruled out the usage of vós in the northernmost districts of continental Portugal, where the latter form is a valid pronoun for T plural (Aguiar & Paiva 2017, Lara Bermejo 2022a).
In contrast to the extensive data we have at our disposal regarding continental Portugal, the reality of the two archipelagos is less researched and, although they are expected to follow the southern patterns (which are standard), there is little information about the actual situation on the islands. As a result, the purpose of this article is to partly fill this gap by pinpointing the current pronominal paradigm of politeness in Madeira, and comparing it to the rest of the country as well as to cross-linguistic tendencies. The paper is divided as follows: in 2, I will briefly discuss the data available regarding the latest variations in the politeness system within Madeira; in 3, I will explain the theoretical framework, corpus and methodology I have applied; in 4, I will describe the data I have collected; in 5, I will analyse the results based on several factors: their geolinguistics, sociolinguistics, pragmatic behaviour and grammatical patterns; in 6, I will show the conclusions and, in 7, I will list the references I have consulted throughout.
2. THE SYSTEM OF MADEIRA
As for the archipelagos, we only rely on the research carried out by Bazenga (2019 and 2022) in Madeira. According to this author, the Madeira society resembles that of continental Portugal, except in the family context. While tu is the T pronoun and o senhor / a senhora is the formal one, você, the null subject strategy and the array of multiple noun phrases are utilised in N situations, with a clear avoidance in the case of você. Nonetheless, in Madeira, parents can still be addressed by means of non-T pronouns and strategies, such as (1-2), taken from Bazenga (2019), reflect.
A
senhora
já
comprou
o
passe?
The
madam
already
buy.3sg.pst.
the
pass
'Did you, madam, already buy the pass?'
O
pai
já
comprou
o
passe?
The
father
already
buy.3sg.pst.
the
pass
'Did you, father, already buy the pass?'
This divergence with respect to the rest of Portugal (we lack information about the Azores) is relevant, because it highlights that the family can still be considered a hierarchical entity, unlike in the continent, where this consideration stopped being so in the late 20th century (Lara Bermejo & Guilherme 2021). In any case, the conception of family as a solidary institution in Portugal occurred more than a century and a half later than elsewhere in western Europe, such as France and Spain (Lara Bermejo 2020b, Lara Bermejo & Guilherme 2021). Additionally, Bazenga (2019) suggests that in Madeira explicit subjects are preferred even in N contexts, in contrast to the preference for null subjects in continental Portugal, according to Carreira (2003) and Lara Bermejo & Guilherme (2018). Nevertheless, this tendency towards an explicit subject in sensitive contexts does not entail the usage of você, which is omitted, as occurs in continental Portugal. For Bazenga (2019, 2022), você mainly arose to address neighbours.
Moreover, the differences remarked upon by Bazenga (2019, 2022) must also be constrained to sociolinguistic parameters, since age and educational background have been crucial in this sense. Her investigations highlight that the older the speakers are, the likelier it is for them to conceive the family as a hierarchical institution and, therefore, to use non-T strategies towards parents. In addition, the lower the educational background of the speakers, the likelier it is for them to maintain hierarchy within the family environment. Lastly, the usage of você mainly to address neighbours was not conditioned by any sociolinguistic variables.
As a matter of fact, we do not have much more information on forms of address in Madeira at our disposal, but Soares (1914), Silva (1950) and Rosado (2003) point out the existence of the variant amecê throughout the entire archipelago. This form stems from vossa mercê and it resembles the archaic alternatives vossemecê or vomecê I have already referred to; however, these authors do not restrict it to isolated areas or a specific sociolinguistic profile.
The lack of detailed information and the apparent inclination towards patterns different from those widespread in continental Portugal make it necessary to carry out a rigorous analysis of the actual and current paradigm of pronouns of address in Madeira. As a consequence, below I depict the corpus and methodology I have employed, as well as the theoretical framework this paper has followed. I then show the data and analyse the results and, lastly, I present the conclusions of this in-depth study.
3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK, CORPUS AND METHODOLOGY
This research paper is based on the variationist theory. Hence, the results I will show throughout will establish whether or not the usage of either pronoun and inflection is conditioned by the sociolinguistic features of the speakers. Furthermore, I will apply the theses by Scollon, Scollon & Jones (1995) regarding the politeness systems. According to these authors, any situation and society can be divided into three possible alternatives: hierarchical, deferential and solidary. In a hierarchical system, there is no reciprocity in the exchange of pronoun and forms of address, since the person who is in an upper position gives T to the one with a lower status, but s/he receives V from his/her interlocutor. This means that the person with a lower status gives V but receives T. In the deferential system, there is reciprocity between interlocutors, but they tend to exchange V by default. Lastly, in the solidary paradigm, there is again reciprocity, but the default exchange is now T.
Societies can also favour any of these three alternatives. Western countries were hierarchical and deferential for hundreds of years, until the late 18th century (Brown & Gilman 1960). From that moment onwards, these societies have gradually favoured pragmatic solidarity by default and every country that has selected this system has always applied it first in the family environment to later extend it to friends, spouses and, in an ulterior phase, to strangers (see Brown & Gilman 1960, and, for specific cases, Benigni & Bates 1977, Paulston 1984, Rigatuso 1992, García Godoy 2010, Molina Martos 2020 and 2021, Lara Bermejo & Guilherme 2021, Lara Bermejo 2022a). Therefore, this article is also committed to unveiling whether Madeira is inclined towards solidarity or, on the contrary, it prefers other strategies by default, as happens in continental Portugal despite the timid increase of solidarity in recent years (Lara Bermejo in press).
However, there may be a misunderstanding in the usage of the terms T, N and V. Even though the literature has labelled N as neutral, this does not mean that N strategies neutralise the degree of politeness. N forms and strategies arise as distant terms and alternatives for situations in which interlocutors find T impolite and V too polite. Moreover, N terms are usually employed reciprocally, but if they are resorted to in non-reciprocal communicative acts, their connotation conveys the degree of distance the interlocutors choose to maintain. Therefore, the non-reciprocity of terms, regardless of their combination, must be understood as a hierarchical relationship, while reciprocity denotes egalitarianism. The choice of either V, N and T in this (non-)reciprocity marks the degree of distance interlocutors wish to maintain, the former being the most and the latter, the least distant option.
With the aim of collecting as many occurrences as possible from spontaneous speech, I have invented an audio-visual methodology that prompts the production of second person pronouns and inflections. The likelihood of second person pronouns appearing is extremely low in a semi-conducted interview, so its elicitation makes it necessary to adopt other methods such as those pointed out by Lara Bermejo (2016) for this same line of research applied to Spanish.
As a result, I have compiled a series of scenes from a well-known sitcom in Portugal (Aqui não há quem viva), in which many types of characters address different groups of people. Firstly, I described to the informants what the character said; they were then required to become the character and repeat the lines as if their interlocutors were in front of them. All participants were asked to play the same characters in the same scenes. In this sense, there has been no variation in the sample depending on the sociolinguistic variables of the informants. This method worked successfully and enabled the elicitation of singular and plural stressed pronouns, as well as their inflections in all the syntactic contexts that were envisaged: verb, reflexive, accusative, dative and possessive.
Likewise, all informants were shown scenes that covered many types of contexts in order to also comprehend the degree of politeness and type of courtesy that is now the norm throughout the archipelago. The informants were thus required to speak to one addressee or group by taking into account the degree of formality of the situation. These scenes covered the following communicative acts and participants: customers, children, parents, neighbours, church, friends, spouses, students, professors, colleagues, subordinate to superior, job interview and TV interview. While friends and spouses are intimate contexts, some of them present asymmetrical relations, specifically: the job interview entailed the address from a manager towards a candidate; another work-related scene showed the address from a subordinate towards a superior; in another scene, a professor talked to a student; and in a scene where church was the setting, the priest talked to his audience. Likewise, there was a series of scenes that can be considered either asymmetrical or symmetrical: the address from children towards their parents and viceversa. The results will determine whether these family environments are perceived in Madeira as hierarchical or not. In a latter selection of scenes I showed some N situations: interaction between customers and sellers, neighbours, colleagues and participants in a TV interview. The reason why these have been labelled N resides in the fact that there is no difference of power among interlocutors, but these situations do not necessarily trigger informality or much formality.
The survey I have depicted above has been applied to 83 informants (with the sociolinguistic variables detailed in Table 2), from whom I have extracted 2,319 occurrences. The island of Madeira provided 63 speakers, while Porto Santo supplied 20 informants.
Number of informants, based on their sociolinguistic features
Furthermore, the methodology has been carried out on the two inhabited islands as map 1 shows:
Localities surveyed
It is important to underlie that over two thirds of the population living in Madeira are concentrated in Funchal and its suburbs, while over 80% of the inhabitants are settled on the southern coast, near Funchal (Região Autónoma da Madeira 2021).
The occurrences have been subsequently classified based on the sociolinguistic variables I have mentioned, but also pursue a series of linguistic parameters: the stressed pronoun, the syntactic context of the stressed pronoun (subject or prepositional phrase), verb, reflexive, accusative, dative, possessive, as well as degree of politeness. The chi squared has also been applied to the data I provide below in order to discover which variable is significant in the usage of either strategy. The instances I show will be labelled after the extra-linguistic features of the informant: M (male), F (female), -30 (younger than 30 years old), 30-60 (between 30 and 60 years old), +60 (older than 60), L (low educational background), H (high educational background), city and demographics. Consequently, M+60H Funchal urban equates to male above the age of 60 with a high educational background, from Funchal, an urban area.
4. DATA
As set out above, the method I employed made it possible to elicit stressed pronouns as well as different inflections in the rest of the syntactic contexts. I show the distribution of each of them in tables 3 and 4.
Stressed pronouns
STRESSED PRONOUN: SUBJECT
STRESSED PRONOUN: PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE
Singular
Tu: 164 (23%)
Você: 204 (28,5%)
O senhor / a senhora: 107 (15%)
Noun phrase: 64 (9%)
Null subject + 3sg: 179 (24,5%)
Ti (contigo): 76 (26,7%)
Você: 20 (7%)
O senhor / a senhora: 6 (2%)
Si (consigo): 176 (62,3%)
Noun phrase: 6 (2%)
Total
718 (100%)
284 (100%)
Plural
Vós: 11 (4%)
Vocês: 232 (86%)
Os senhores / as senhoras: 28 (10%)
Vós: 1 (20%)
Vocês: 79 / Convosco: 3 (60%)
Os senhores / as senhoras: 1 (20%)
Total
271 (100%)
5 (100%)
Agreement in the inflectional system
VERB
REFLEXIVE
ACCUSATIVE
DATIVE
POSSESSIVE
2sg: 372
2sg: 1
2sg: 136
2sg: 12
2sg: 197
3sg: 509
3sg: 28
3sg: 58
3sg: 27
3sg: 96
2pl: 6
2pl: 1
2pl: 89
2pl: 99
2pl: 47
3pl: 316
3pl: 79
3pl: 22
3pl: 6
3pl: 7
Table 3 clearly shows that Madeira speakers explicitly use você in singular as well as vós in plural, though the latter pronoun was produced on a few occasions. Likewise, the verbal inflection exhibits a 2pl agreement six times, whereas the reflexive pronoun has only arisen once with a 2pl desinence (3-7).
Você
copiou
e
não
vou
aceitar
3sg.nom.
3sg.pst.copy
and
no
1.sg.pres.go
inf.accept
o
exame (M-30H Funchal urban)
the
exam
'You cheated and I am not going to accept your exam'
Você
e
o
representante
3sg.nom.
3sg.pres.be
the
representative
Desta
greve? (F-30L Ponta do Solo rural)
of+this
strike
'Are you the representative of this strike?'
Você
está
sempre
a
falar
3sg.nom.
3sg.pres.be
always
to
inf.speak
mal
das
pessoas (F30-60H Santana rural)
bad
of+the
persons
'You are always criticising the people'
Vós
sois
o
futuro
2pl.nom.
2pl.pres.be
the
future
da
igreja (M30-60H Funchal urban)
of+the
church
'You are the future of the church'
Tendes
de
vos
basear
2pl.pres.have
of
2pl.refl.
inf.base
no
cristianismo (F-30H Camacha rural)
in+the
Christianity
'You have to follow your lives on a Christian life'
The remaining syntactic elements inflected in 2pl do not necessarily refer to vós, since throughout Portugal vocês induces 3pl in verbs and reflexives and 2pl in objects and possessives (8-10).
Vocês
são
maus
pais,
já
não
3pl.nom.
3pl.pres.be
bad
parents,
now
no
vos
quero
voltar
a
ver (M-30L Caniço rural)
2pl.acc.
1sg.press.want
inf.return
to
inf.see
'You are bad parents, I don't want to see you anymore'
Filhos,
vocês
portaram-se
bem
e
cá
Children
3pl.nom.
3pl.pst.behave+3pl.refl.
well
and
here
têm
a
televisão
que
vos
3pl.press.have
the
television
that
2pl.dat.
tinha
prometido
1sg.pst.have
pcp.promise
(F-30L Machico rural)
'Children, you behaved well and here you are the television I had promised you'
Vocês
vão
ter
que
pagar
3pl.nom.
3pl.pres.go
inf.have
that
inf.pay
pelos
vossos
electrodomésticos (F+60L Funchal urban)
for+the
2pl.poss.
appliances
'You have to pay for your home appliances'
Besides the abovementioned examples, the results have also shown the employment of another three strategies that the literature has repeatedly referred to: o senhor / a senhora to address someone politely, the resource of the noun phrase plus 3sg to treat somebody with whom distance should be maintained and the selection of no subject plus 3sg for the same diaphasic situation (11-17). According to Raposo et al. (2020), the choice of either depends on the degree of distance, with o senhor / a senhora being more formal than the proper name plus 3sg, but less than the explicitness of the treatment followed by social status plus 3sg (such as o senhor doutor, ‘sir doctor’).
A
menina
foi
a
melhor
The
girl
3sg.pst.be
the
best
candidata
que
tive (F+60L Câmara de Lobos rural)
candidate
that
1sg.pst.have
'You, girl, were the best candidate I have had'
A
Joana
é
a
melhor
candidata
The
Joana
3sg.press.be
the
best
candidate
para
esta
vaga (F30-60H Caniçal rural)
for
this
job
'Joana, you are the best candidate for this job position'
Queria
saber
se
o
patrão
podia
1sg.pst.want
infknow
if
the
boss
c3sg.pst.can
dar-me
alguns
dias
de
folga (M-30L Caniço rural)
inf.give+1sg.dat.
some
days
of
rest
'I would like to know whether you, boss, could give me some holidays'
A
mãe
é
muito
má (F+60L Funchal urban)
The
mother
3sg.pres.be
very
bad
'Mother, you are very bad'
O
senhor
é
o
melhor
The
sir
3sg.pres.be
the
best
chefe
que
tive (M-30L Santo António urban)
boss
that
1sg.pst.have
'You sir were the best boss I have ever had'
A
vizinha
está
sempre
The
neighbour
3sg.pres.be
always
a
cochinar (M+60L Funchal urban)
to
inf.gossip
'You, neighbour, are always gossiping'
A
senhora
tem
experiência
e
The
lady
3sg.pres.have
experience
and
parece
responsável (M30-60H Santa Cruz rural)
3sg.pres.seem
responsible
'You lady have expertise and seem responsible'
These examples reflect the array of possibilities in non-T communicative acts. Informants have chosen the proper name, the professional status, the kinship position and the noun phrase, o senhor / a senhora. It is important to clarify that I will treat the phrase o senhor / a senhora as virtually pronominal. Although it emerges as a nominal compound, its behaviour resembles that of a pronoun (in fact, Cunha & Cintra 1992 have already pointed out this fact), since it has achieved a very fixed degree of coalescence and is undergoing a grammaticalization process with loss of phonic weight that in Brazil has been addressed with solutions such as sinhô and sô (Ramos 2011).
As for the null subject plus 3sg, its emergence reaches up to 179 occurrences. It is important to make clear what is understood by null subject plus 3sg, because this terminology lends itself to spurious conclusions in a pro drop language such as Portuguese. The tokens I have counted do not encompass any sentence without a pronoun, but they entail the number of sentences without any explicit subject in a given pragmatic situation. This means that, for a specific scene, if the informant has produced 5 out of 6 sentences without any subject (but s/he has done so in one), then none of them can be considered null subject plus 3sg. The fact that five of them fail to exhibit a subject simply follows the grammatical behaviour of a pro drop language, but it becomes clearly apparent that the sentence with the subject is simultaneously the implicit subject of the other five. As a consequence, I have applied the label of null subject plus 3sg only when the informant did not produce any subject at all in all the speech s/he uttered throughout an entire situation. This slight difference is crucial, for it cannot be said that the informants who resorted to a null subject plus 2sg tried to avoid the subject in order not to be impolite. The mere employment of 2sg establishes the relationship and implies the usage of tu. Nevertheless, the selection of the 3sg without any subject leaves the treatment the addresser has in his/her mind, and tries to avoid at any cost precisely to avoid impoliteness, unclear. In this sense, the 3sg envisages several alternatives: o senhor / a senhora, the noun phrase or você, while the 2sg can only refer to tu.
The occurrences I have depicted up to now suggest the large paradigm that exists in Madeira Portuguese, mainly in singular. All these characteristics are at the same time constrained by geographical and sociolinguistic variables, as well as by universal pragmatic tendencies and cross-linguistic grammatical patterns. Therefore, in the next section, I will analyse all these factors under study.
5. ANALYSIS
The previous section showed the total results of the survey and shed light on the existence of the pronouns of address in the Madeira of today, as well as the inflectional system. Nevertheless, the data suggest that not every pronoun or strategy is conditioned by the same geographical, sociolinguistic or pragmatic variables. In fact, the geolinguistic constraint applies to the behaviour of vocês and its agreement pattern only, since the results have not provided any specific pattern for the usage of tu, vós, você, o senhor (and its counterparts in gender and number) and other strategies, such as null subject plus 3sg or noun phrase plus 3sg.
Moreover, the analysis reveals that sociolinguistic factors affect the usage of você as well as the strategies employed to address parents, but not any other pronoun or strategy. Likewise, the results show that the pragmatic reality of Madeira is undergoing important changes regarding the conception of family, the spread of pragmatic solidarity, as well as the virtual disappearance of vós even for the expected stereotyped contexts. Finally, it is worth mentioning that grammar also plays a role in the changes in progress: this is especially relevant in the extension of vocês as well as in the deletion of vós. Furthermore, the data have also been supplied with tokens of stressed pronouns in object positions as well as with dative clitics for accusative contexts.
In light of the abovementioned features, the analysis is focused on the following phenomena: in 5.1., I discuss the geolinguistic extension of vocês; in 5.2., I present the sociolinguistic constraints I have referred to previously; in 5.3., I argue the pragmatic tendencies attested nowadays in Madeira; and in 5.4., I detail the grammatical behaviour of the inflections anchoring vocês and the elimination of vós, as well as the other phenomena regarding clitics and objects.
5.1. Geolinguistics
As has been stated, the single element that is subject to geographic variation is the extension of the agreement referring to vocês. This was expected, since this pronoun and its inflections vary on the continent, depending on a continuum. In previous sections I stated that continental Portugal possesses different areas that are characterised by prompting the 3pl in a given implicational stage within a hierarchy. As a result, it is also necessary to draw the diffusion of the 3pl in the syntactic elements anchoring vocês in Madeira (map 2) in order todiscover whether it has the same behaviour and to what extent the 3pl has reached the end of the continuum.
Extension of 3pl anchoring vocês
Map 2 represents the cartographic diffusion of the 3pl throughout the objects and the possessive. It is important to bear in mind that in the case of 3pl the entire archipelago is in agreement on the stressed pronoun, the reflexive and the verb. However, the emergence of the 3pl in further elements depends upon a diatopic factor. Whilst Funchal and its surroundings now exhibit 3pl in objects and possessives (18 and 19a-21a), Porto Santo and some areas in southern Madeira and around the village of Santana in the north also present the 3pl in the accusative and the dative, but not yet in the possessive (18, 19a-20a and 21b). The eastern part of the island as well as most of the southern zone only inflect the accusative in 3pl, but not the dative and the possessive (18, 19a and 20-21b). Lastly, the rest of Madeira only agrees on the verb, the reflexive and the stressed pronoun in 3pl, but prefers the objects and the possessive to be construed in 2pl morphology (18, 19b-21-b).
(M-30N Funchal urban // F60N Porto Santo rural // M-30N Machico rural // M30-60N Porto Moniz rural)
(M-30N Machico rural // M30-60N Porto Moniz rural)
Comprei-vos
uma
televisão
Buy.1sg.pst.+2pl.dat.
a
television
'I bought you a television'
(M-30N Funchal urban)
Vão
ter
de
pagar
os
seus
Go.3pl.prs.
have.inf.
of
pay.inf.
the
poss.3pl.
eletrodomésticos
electrical appliances
'You must pay for your electrical appliances'
(F60N Porto Santo rural // M-30N Machico rural // M30-60N Porto Moniz
Vão
ter
de
pagar
os
vossos
Go.3pl.prs.
have.inf.
of
pay.inf.
the
poss.2pl.
eletrodomésticos
electrical appliances
'You must pay for your electrical appliances'
The geographical distribution drawn by map 2 points out two tendencies: the first refers to the fact that no specific pattern is followed in the diffusion of the 3pl. The appearance of this agreement in objects and possessives is attested randomly and suggests that every area ends up spreading this inflection to further elements without the pressure or the affectedness from a neighbouring region; secondly, the most rural and remote areas within Madeira (the west, the north-west and the centre) are coherent in maintaining the 3pl only in the stressed pronoun, the verb and the reflexive. The relative isolation of this region with respect to the rest of the archipelago may have played a role in this sense.
5.2. Sociolinguistics
In the previous paragraphs I described the distribution of stressed pronouns and inflections in current Madeira. Nonetheless, there are two options that seem to be subject to the sociolinguistic parameters of the speaker (apart from the communicative context, as will be discussed in the pragmatic section): the usage of você as well as the strategies to address members of the family.
In Table 5, I detail the sociolinguistic variables that have explicitly used the pronoun você.
Sociolinguistic variables in the usage of você
SEX
AGE
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
DEMOGRAPHICS
Male: 32 (91,5%) out of 35
-30: 30 (81%) out of 37
Low: 44 (78,5%) out of 56
Rural: 49 (83%) out of 59
Female: 35 (73%) out of 48
30-60: 21 (80,7%) out of 26
+60: 16 (80%) out of 20
High: 23 (85%) out of 27
Urban: 18 (75%) out of 24
67 (80,7%) out of 83 informants
Table 5 clearly establishes the scarce differences that seem to appear when collating the profiles. Regardless of age, employment is high and the same applies to educational background and, to some extent, the demographic pattern. Only sex supplies a wider gap, with the male informants being more inclined to produce você. If the chi squared is calculated, no variable is significant except the one that refers to sex, which grants the following result: p-value is .034748, significant at p < .05. In other words, the resource of você in Madeira is restrained to the sex of the informant and not to any other sociolinguistic characteristic, but this restriction is statistically significant in a minimal proportion.
Another crucial aspect is related to the hierarchical consideration of family. Below, in Table 6, I list the sociolinguistic profiles of the speakers who have resorted to non-T strategies to address parents. Attention should be drawn to the fact that Table 6 synthesises all the strategies that are not associated with informality. In this sense, both V and N alternatives have been included. In the pragmatic section, I will disentangle the behaviour of both strategies (N and V) in this regard.
Sociolinguistic variables in the usage of non-T strategies towards parents
SEX
AGE
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
DEMOGRAPHICS
Male: 15 (42,8%) out of 35
-30: 10 (27%) out of 37
Low: 24 (42,8%) out of 56
Rural: 22 (37,3%) out of 59
Female: 19 (39,5%) out of 48
30-60: 11 (42,3%) out of 26
+60: 13 (65%) out of 20
High: 10 (37%) out of 27
Urban: 12 (50%) out of 24
34 (40,9%) out of 83 informants
Table 6 suggests the increase of pragmatic solidarity and the gradual conception of family as an egalitarian entity. It reveals that at least 4 out of 10 speakers in current Madeira still considers the family entity as non-solidary. As that which occurred with the usage of você, the percentages are more or less close to each other, and it becomes necessary to apply the chi squared. In this case, the single variable that has emerged as significant is age: p-value is .020557, significant at p < .05. In other words, the older the informants, the more inclined they are to employ non-T strategies in the family environment.
To summarise, the current sociolinguistic panorama in Madeira determines that the employment of você is quite extended, but it is more rooted in men. Furthermore, the hierarchical (at least, non-solidary) conception of family is still valid amongst older people, whereas the rest of the speakers tend to make it solidary, mainly in the case of younger speakers. Below, I discuss the pragmatic behaviour of the current system, focusing on the pronoun você, the gradual tendency towards solidarity in plural forms and within the family and the maintenance of deference in singular and the elimination of vós.
5.3. Pragmatics
The ruling pragmatic system in current Madeira suggests three changes in progress: the total disappearance of vós even in contexts where it had been preserved; the gradual tendency towards pragmatic solidarity in plural; and the maintenance of deference and distance in singular, though less and less within the family and in conflict with the usage of você.
5.3.1. The usage of vós
The employment of vós has been scarce, as Table 7 depicts.
Usage of vós based on sociolinguistic profiles
SEX
AGE
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
DEMOGRAPHICS
Male: 4 (11,4%) out of 35
-30: 2 (5,4%) out of 37
Low: 3 (5,3%) out of 56
Rural: 6 (10,1%) out of 59
Female: 4 (8,3%) out of 48
30-60: 4 (15,4%) out of 26
+60: 2 (10%) out of 20
High: 5 (18,5%) out of 27
Urban: 2 (8,3%) out of 24
8 (9,6%) out of 83 informants
Although I have already made clear that the usage of vós does not depend upon any sociolinguistic feature (as determined by the statistical proof), I have intentionally included this information in Table 7 in order to demonstrate the generalised disappearance of vós in Madeira society. Scarcely 10% of informants have produced it within the expected contexts from where it may emerge.
The twelve occasions on which speakers produced it referred to the church, precisely one of the situations where it is expected to be attested, but its scarcity and its substitution by the pronoun vocês in most informants, regardless of their sociolinguistic profile, indicate that it is close to disappearance even in these contexts.
The gradual loss of vós even for certain stereotyped contexts resembles its Spanish counterpart in Hispanic America. The opposition vosotros-ustedes that dominates in Spain, the former being T plural and the latter V plural, stopped being valid in Hispanic America in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, when ustedes generalised as the single plural pronoun, regardless of the degree of politeness (Lara Bermejo 2022a). Nevertheless, vosotros was maintained as the selected pronoun within the church, army and parliament, exactly the same situations as for European Portuguese (Cunha & Cintra 1972). The usage of vosotros is widely attested in Hispanic America for these purposes, as Vázquez Laslop (2010) demonstrates for Mexico, but this same author has drawn attention to the fact that even these contexts are gradually dismissing vosotros as a formula and are on the verge of choosing ustedes plus 3pl. This is exactly what my corpus suggests regarding current Portuguese, at least in Madeira.
5.3.2. Address within the family
With respect to the family environment, Bazenga (2019) remarks upon the profound maintenance of non-T strategies from children towards their parents, with a persistence as regards the hierarchical view of family, as that which occurred in western societies prior to the French Revolution. According to this author, nearly three quarters of the people she surveyed preferred alternatives such as o senhor / a senhora, the noun pai and mãe followed by 3sg rather than 2sg, and the strategy of null subject plus 3sg. This tendency was, however, restrained to elderly speakers and to informants with a low educational background. My survey has further analysed this fact and in Table 6 I referred to the fact that the elderly are more inclined to do so, with this being less and less the case the younger the speaker is. Regardless, in this section I will deal with the strategies people from Madeira resort to for relatives in a higher position. In Tables 8, 9 and 10, I detail the number of occurrences of T, N and V strategies respectively to address parents.
T strategies towards parents
TU
NULL SUBJECT + 2SG
ACCUSATIVE 2SG
PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE
26 (29%)
22 (24,7%)
20 (22,5%)
Ti: 21 (23,8%)
89 (100%)
N strategies towards parents
VOCÊ
NULL SUBJECT + 3SG
PAI / MÃE (NOUN PHRASE)
ACCUSATIVE 3SG
PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE
12 (15,6%)
5 (6,5%)
18 (23,3%)
15 (19,5%)
Si: 21 (27,3%)
Você: 1 (1,3%)
Pai / mãe (noun phrase): 5 (6,5%)
77 (100%)
V strategies towards parents
O SENHOR / A SENHORA
PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE
5 (20%)
Si: 21 (80%)
26 (100%)
Tables 8, 9 and 10 indicate firstly that T alternatives are based upon the pronoun tu and 2sg inflections. Nonetheless, non-T strategies exhibit further possibilities: the explicit usage of você, the employment of o senhor / a senhora, the status held within the family as the subject of the sentence (mãe, pai) as well as the null subject plus 3sg.
Firstly, the choice for the kinship status is always followed by the 3sg, revealing that it is not a T strategy. Secondly, the accusative inflected in 3sg is not reinforced by any stressed pronoun or form, which is why I have labelled it as N, as in the strategy of null subject plus 3sg, for it leaves the address opaque. Finally, the most diffused prepositional phrase is si, again increasing the opacity of the form of address, since it is useful for any resource that envisages the 3sg regardless of the subject form. In any case, as (22-24) demonstrate, at present 40% of Madeira speakers produce non-T strategies to address parents.
A
mãe
é
muito
má
e
não
The
mother
3sg.pres.be
very
bad
and
no
me
deixa
sair (F-30L Machico rural)
1sg.dat.
3sg.pres.let
inf.go out
'You mother are very bad and don’t let me go out'
A
senhora
fez
mal (F+60L Porto Santo rural)
The
lady
3sg.pst.do
bad
'You mother did badly'
Você
não
me
deixa
3sg.nom.
no
1sg.dat.
3sg.pres.let
sair (F30-60H Caniçal rural)
inf.go out
'You don’t let me go out'
The resource of você has been employed by 4 elderly, 5 middle-aged and one young informant. O senhor / a senhora, on the contrary, has been used by one elderly, 2 middled-aged and two young informants. The noun phrase strategy is divided as follows: 9 elderly, 4 middle-aged, and 4 young people. Finally, the null subject has been preferred by 1 elderly, 4 middle-aged and 1 young. The overall results suggest the tendency within the family entity towards solidarity, but undergoing an intermediate phase earlier.
Apart from the fact that 40% of the sample used non-T strategies towards parents, the most diffused pronouns and alternatives are those associated with N, since o senhor / a senhora hardly appeared. In this sense, the family concept has passed from being considered hierarchical to being conceived slightly more solidary in these profiles, for they prefer N strategies such as você, the family status plus 3sg or null subject plus 3sg. It cannot be affirmed, however, that this slow tendency means solidarity, rather less hierarchy, since the abovementioned options are still deferential. Children gave V or N to their parents, but they were replied to with the T form, so there was no reciprocity in the exchange of the level of politeness. As a result, the transformation that the family has undergone in Madeira has entailed an in-between phase, before a final reversion to solidarity. Hence, the results found in this field study simply reveal the last relics of the family as a non-solidary entity, underlying this in-between stage before achieving this goal.
This in-between phase is likewise underpinned again by Spanish. García Godoy (2008, 2010) has documented the change in Spain that occurred in the early 19th century, when upper-class and urban people started to address their parents through T. However, the usage of pronoun tú (T) for parents was not immediate and, before this happened, children underwent a stage in which they continued to employ V pronouns but with noun phrases that were perceived as T. Specifically, children ousted the terms padre (‘father’) and madre (‘mother’) by favouring the allocutives papá (‘dad’) and mamá (‘mom’). The emergence of these noun phrases did not imply the rise of tú, but there was a period of time in which T noun phrases coexisted with V pronouns for the same interlocutors. With time, children also deleted V pronouns and treated their parents by means of tú. This is not exclusive to the family, but Molina Martos (2021) states that T noun phrases are always the prelude to T pronouns. Her affirmations are based on the fact that there was also a generalised usage of tú in relationships of friendship or marriage in the late 19th century after the previous universalisation of T noun phrases for these contexts (Molina Martos 2020).
Unlike European Portuguese, Peninsular Spanish does not possess N pronouns or strategies. Whereas Spanish mixed T noun phrases with V pronouns in the intermediate stage before the total establishment of pragmatic solidarity in the abovementioned contexts, Madeira Portuguese has selected N forms and alternatives for this in-between phase towards pragmatic solidarity.
5.3.3. The usage of você and null subject + 3sg
One of the relevant factors to be assessed as regards the pronoun você is its pragmatic range in current Madeira. Based on my corpus, this resource has arisen on 15 (6.7%) occasions to address someone politely; on 83 (37%) occasions to address an interlocutor who is in a lower position; and on 126 (56.3%) occasions to treat an addressee who is in an equal position. In the former case, the informants selected it to address a manager (5 young, 6 middled-aged and 3 elderly), while in the second situation, the addresser was either a professor who spoke to a student or a manager who addressed a subordinate. In the latter case, the interlocutors covered clients, non-elderly strangers and neighbours.
The distribution of pronouns makes it necessary to assess whether it also depends on the diaphasic context or if it is only a matter of sociolinguistic factors. In Table 11, I detail the number of times every pronoun has arisen and in what context.
Distribution of singular pronoun based on the diaphasic situation
T
N
V
Tu
132 (27%)
32 (6,3%)
0
Você
101 (20%)
110 (21,8%)
13 (2,6%)
O senhor / a senhora
0
71 (14%)
46 (8,3%)
Table 11 illustrates that tu cannot be resorted to as a V strategy and neither can o senhor be employed as T. The former is useful in intimate contexts and, to a lesser extent, in neutral situations in which interlocutors share power. The latter is employed to give V to someone and it can also appear in N situations. As was stated by the literature regarding continental Portugal, você can be perceived as T, N and V. In Madeira, following the results of this field study, você as asymmetrical ascendant (V) is strictly limited to those informants that still use it for parents as well as, on very rare occasions, to address a manager. The most diffused pragmatic value of você in current Madeira lies on N and, in the case of T, if there is no reciprocity in the treatment. In other words: você is deferential when it is expected to serve for both interlocutors, and asymmetrical as it is also employed to address someone in a lower position. To sum up, tu is solidary, o senhor is both deferential and hierarchical to address someone in a higher position, and você is both deferential and hierarchical to address someone in a lower position. The difference in the employment of o senhor and você for deference is the degree of communicative distance, the former being more distant than the latter. As a matter of fact, the statistical results leave no doubt; based on the chi squared, the p-value is < 0.00001, significant at p < .05.
The apparent contradictory behaviour of você resembles the pragmatic path of singular vós in both Portuguese and Spanish as a V pronoun. The pragmatic origin of this form was V in the Middle Ages, but as V forms emerged by default, their courteous connotation stopped being perceived and by the late Middle Ages and the early Modern Era, speakers made up new polite strategies to replace the gradual loss of courtesy that vós was undergoing (Cintra 1972). Nevertheless, the pragmatic depreciation of vós entailed a period of time in which it could be considered in a contradictory way: polite, informal and even offensive. Vós became an N pronoun, for contexts in which a V strategy was too polite and where tu was not polite enough. Thus, European Portuguese exhibited at that time a tripartite system in singular, in which vós could be employed as the current você. The problem with N situations is the certainty about such a consideration on the part of the interlocutor. The boundary between a T and an N context can be narrow, as the frontier between N and V can also be. This is why tripartite paradigms in singular are rarely attested cross-linguistically (Helmbrecht 2005) and can be witnessed for example in Romanian.
The fear of committing a face-threatening act obliges the addresser to know some data about his/her interlocutor in order to satisfy the communicative act. As você can be problematic for the abovementioned reasons, speakers solve this problem by not explicitly producing a pronoun and resorting to a null subject plus 3sg or to a noun phrase. This alternative is crucial, since the explicit expression of a subject is sometimes necessary for topical continuity or for contrastive purposes. When the informants who took part in this survey needed to produce a subject in an N situation and did not want to use você, they asked me about the proper name of the addressee. Only when they were given the name could they go on with the discourse. In the cases in which no proper name was given, they could not help inventing it. Additionally, if they knew the job their addressee had, this problem was solved by referring to the professional status, but the knowledge of the proper name of the addressee has become essential in current European Portuguese to avoid impoliteness in certain situations in which the addresser does not consider você the right subject. This can even be valued in the distribution of the null subject + 3sg and the explicit usage of a subject in both N and V (Table 12).
Occurrences of N and V with and without a subject
N
V
Null subject + 3sg
99 (35,4%)
80 (57,6%)
Subject
181 (64,6%)
59 (42,4%)
Table 12 shows that, contrary to the statements in the literature regarding continental Portugal, Madeira speakers prefer the explicitness of a subject in the most problematic pragmatic context of all: N. However, V situations give the opposite picture though with a lesser gap between percentages. It is pertinent to recall that accounting for the null subject plus 2sg is useless, because any 2sg inflection with or without a subject implies the usage of tu. The data Table 12 provides is interesting, as it shows the need to make the degree of politeness clear through the treatment itself in spite of the fact that the 3sg alone avoids such a commitment. In this sense, Madeira seems to follow a different path from continental Portugal, as Bazenga (2019) claims.
The results I present regarding você contradict a number of statements that can be found repeatedly in the literature, but which are not supported by any empirical research. For instance, Bacelar de Nascimento, Duarte & Mendes (2018) state that in Portugal, você is employed by an elite who use it interchangeably with T as a way to differentiate themselves from other social classes. This is the first theory yet to beunderpinned by any empirical data and which demands specific research. Secondly, these authors also remark that Portugal is experiencing an increasing tendency towards the usage of você in younger generations and speakers with low educational backgrounds. My study does not support this hypothesis at all (it is important to highlight that these statements are not backed up by any empirical study) and, with regards to Madeira, você is widely attested irrespective of sociolinguistic variables, except for sex, though to a minimal degree. Thirdly, Bacelar de Nascimento, Duarte & Mendes (2018) resort to quite an extended cliché in Lusophone linguistics when they affirm that the supposed increase of você is a direct influence of TV series produced in Brazil (telenovelas) as well as of the mass migration on the part of Brazilian people to Portugal.
As regards the aforementioned cliché, apart from the lack of empirical evidence it emerges as the least likely hypothesis of all. In the first place, language contact and dialect contact (which more or less behave the same) exhibit a series of stages that depend on both linguistic and extra-linguistic features. While the former usually affect lexicon, to a lesser extent phonetics, very rarely morpho-syntax and virtually never pragmatics, the latter respond to the prestige and consideration of every language and dialect involved in the contact (Van Coetsem 1988, Heine & Kuteva 2005). Applied to European Portuguese and its contact with Brazilian Portuguese via television and migration, this means that the Portuguese would have adopted many lexical items from the Brazilian variety, had they incorporated você as it is used in Brazil. Moreover, the Portuguese would have started to produce certain phonetic contexts in a Brazilian way, had they incorporated você as it is used in Brazil. Additionally, the Portuguese would have developed morpho-syntactic features coming from the Brazilian variety, had they incorporated você as it is used in Brazil. To summarise: if Portugal had reinterpreted the pragmatic employment of você because of a direct influence from the Brazilians, then European Portuguese would have to exhibit an array of linguistic features, mainly in lexicon, less in phonetics and even less in syntax, influenced by the Brazilian variety. However, this has not occurred. The usage of você has nothing to do with the Brazilian reality.
Empirical evidence supports my proposal that the employment of você in European Portuguese is not affected by the Brazilian paradigm, at least regarding Madeira. Pragmatics is a characteristic that varies depending on a specific country, but not on the language. It is very rooted in the beliefs of a given society and, consequently, the pragmatic system of Portugal is different from that of Brazil, which is also different from that of Angola and so on. It is not Portuguese that is the factor that imposes a type of pragmatic system, rather, it is the country regardless of the language and languages spoken within. For example, politeness in Switzerland is not conceived the same way as in Germany, Italy and France, despite the fact that this country presents the three languages. Indeed, Switzerland applies a type of politeness that is useful for all of its official languages (Hickey & Stewart 2005).
The same happens in the Hispanic world. The pragmatic conception of politeness in Spain is not the same as that in Costa Rica, although both countries possess Spanish (Hummel, Kluge & Vázquez Laslop 2010, Hummel & Lopes 2020). Within Spain, however, speakers of Spanish, Galician, Catalan and Basque behave identically in this respect because the pragmatic system is constrained to what Spain understands, and not to what every language triggers. Furthermore, the shift in pragmatics, specifically in relation to politeness, follows the prestige (Lara Bermejo 2022a). Spain changed to pragmatic solidarity in the late 18th century as a French influence because the prestige at that time was France (Lara Bermejo 2020b). But in the case of dialect contact, the change is usually made by those who are in a lower position. Sinner (2010) investigated the pragmatic behaviour of Argentinians who migrated to both Germany and Spain. While they did not develop any shift in Spanish if they lived in Germany, those who settled in Spain gradually took the Spanish pragmatic system and not the other way around. Lara Bermejo (2018b) studied the adoption of the politeness system from Ecuadorian people in Spain and concluded that they tended to adopt the Spanish system because it is the prestigious model in that country, but they did it in stages and very slowly, underlying again the reluctance towards pragmatic shifts even within the same language. Hence, it is very unlikely for Brazilian immigrants to have conditioned the Portuguese in Portugal. The statements by Bacelar de Nascimento, Duarte & Mendes (2018) do not have counterparts elsewhere.
5.3.4. Tendency towards solidarity
I affirmed above that present day Madeira is gradually accepting solidarity in the plural. The comparison of occurrences suggests this fact: vocês was produced 311 times whereas os senhores / as senhoras was expressed 29 times. The latter was resorted to when the addressees were elderly and in situations that implied distance, but not necessarily hierarchy, such as when dealing with customers. It is worth mentioning that the same speakers that talked to their parents by means of a V strategy in singular opted for vocês and not for os senhores when they addressed both parents. Likewise, most informants that resorted to o senhor or a senhora in singular preferred vocês for the same situations in plural. As that which could occur in singular with the choice of o senhor and você or null subject plus 3sg, the selection for either vocês or os senhores in certain contexts, mainly N, is subject to the degree of distance and deference that the addresser establishes with respect to his/her addressees. But, roughly speaking, vocês can be used for plural contexts where o senhor / a senhora would be the most adequate strategy in singular.
Solidarity usually starts in the plural rather than in the singular in languages that have pronominal divergences in this grammatical number for different diaphasic situations. For example, French or Italian do not exhibit different pronouns in plural to distinguish the degree of politeness, for vous can serve for both T and V and voi behaves alike. However, Peninsular Spanish opposes vosotros for T to ustedes for V and Lara Bermejo (2022b) has demonstrated that pragmatic solidarity in Spain began in the plural in the late 18th century. From that moment, Spanish society gradually tended to accept more contexts via vosotros, but did not do the same thing in singular. It was only when this happened in plural that Spain further prompted pragmatic solidarity by also resorting to singular T pronouns in contexts where a V pronoun was previously mandatory. Moreover, as Siewierska (2004) argues, it is quite rare to attest languages that also establish pronominal differences in plural to express social deixis, and this is why most languages only exhibit an array of pronouns (two in French or Italian, up to four in Hispanic America) to mark diaphasic distinctions in singular. The plural lends itself to syncretism and, as a result, entails fewer pragmatic risks; therefore, the plural favours profound pragmatic changes in society, as occurs with the case of pragmatic solidarity.
5.4. Grammatical behaviour
Lastly, it is important to determine the grammatical behaviour of the Madeira paradigm: stressed pronouns in unstressed positions, dative clitics in accusative contexts, the prepositional phrase for non-T forms, the extension of the 3pl in vocês and the deletion of vós.
5.4.1. Objects and oblique: stressed pronouns, dative and the prepositional phrase
As for the usage of stressed pronouns in unstressed positions, this has only happened with the pronoun você. Specifically, it has been produced 9 times as an accusative and, though there are no restrictions that apply to age or sex, 2 people have a high educational background whereas 7 informants have a lower educational level (25-26). Likewise, the employment of dative pronouns in accusative contexts has also arisen 4 times, all of them produced by young speakers with no educational background (27-29).
Vi
você
copiar (M-30L Caniço rural)
1sg.pst.see
3sg.nom.
inf.copy
'I saw you cheated'
Os
vizinhos
consideram
The
neighbours
3pl.pres.consider
você
o
portavoz? (M-30L Santana rural)
3sg.nom.
the
speaker
'Do your neighbours consider you as the speaker?'
Vi-lhe
a
copiar (M-30L Caniço rural)
1sg.pst.see+3sg.dat.
to
inf.copy
'I saw you cheated'
Já
não
lhe
aguento
mais (M-30L São Martinho urban)
Now
no
3sg.dat.
1sg.pres.bear
more
'I can’t stand you anymore'
Não
lhe
quero
ver
mais (F-30L Caniço rural)
No
3sg.dat.
1sg.pres.want
inf.see
more
'I don’t want to see you anymore'
The resource of stressed pronouns in unstressed contexts, mainly direct objects, is widely documented in Brazil, but it has also been pointed out for Madeira by Bazenga, Andrade & da Silva Rodrigues (2016). However, in their study, this alternative is found in people with a low educational background. This is also the main sociolinguistic variable in my corpus, though it has also emerged in informants with the opposite profile. As for the dative in accusative environments, this lhe instead of the normative accusative pronouns has also been attested in continental Portugal as well as in Madeira with reference to a semantic third person (Segura da Cruz 1991, Bazenga & Rodrigues 2019), but in my corpus this has occurred with reference to você and not to any other 3sg strategy. This suggests that lhe could also appear for reasons of politeness, imitating the model in Brazil and in Spain. Regardless of the sociolinguistic factors that may prompt this shift, its mere existence obeys two specific purposes: the differentiation between a semantic and a syntactic third person, and the promotion of the human entity in the topical scale, conveyed by the most common grammatical case (the dative).
The former reason can also be found in Brazilian Portuguese and Peninsular Spanish, where the dative lhe and le, respectively, have established themselves as the unique unstressed pronouns in third person in order to distinguish politeness and a semantic third person. By doing so, both varieties resort to normative accusative pronouns where the entity is he or she, but change to dative in any unstressed context when the reference is an addressee who should be addressed politely. As a result, this variation in case responds to pragmatic motives (Fernández-Ordóñez 1999, De Souza & Lopes 2015, Gómez Seibane 2021).
The latter reason is a cross-linguistic tendency prompted by several semantic and discursive grounds. Givón (2001) pinpoints that the dative case usually conveys a human entity, embodied in a number of semantic roles: beneficiary, recipient, possessor or even dative, which the author defines as a conscious participant in the event, typically animate, but not the deliberate initiator. This last semantic role can materialise in different syntactic functions (30-32).
John knew Mary
John scared Mary
John talked to Mary
Instances (30-32) underlie that the element in italics is semantically a dative and, syntactically, it can be the subject, the direct object and the indirect object. In other words: a dative can be these three syntactic functions, but a patient or an agent cannot. Moreover, as the dative is usually a human entity and can emerge in all those syntactic positions, it is inclined to be conveyed by a specific marker, also because of discursive reasons. Again, according to Givón (2001), the human entity is the most salient feature in discourse, tending to be positioned at the beginning of the speech because of a topical hierarchy that promotes the human to the first place. Furthermore, the human entity also lends itself to being referred to in a specific way to follow its saliency: this means that, regardless of its syntactic function, it may be expressed coherently and differently with regards to non-human entities. As a result, humans may develop their own marker for any syntactic case in contrast to a different marker for other referents.
If we compare these cross-linguistic tendencies to the dialectic realities in Madeira or elsewhere in Brazil and Spain, it is possible to observe that all of them follow these assumptions. Firstly, the human entity is conveyed coherently with its own marker, in this case le in Spanish and lhe in Portuguese. Secondly, the human entity is inclined to be expressed differently with respect to another referent even for the same syntactic functions, which is why Spanish and some varieties of Portuguese have developed a clitic for polite third person and another one for a non-human or semantic third person (Fernández-Ordóñez 1999, Gómez Seibane 2021). Thirdly, the two of them have selected the dative case, which coincides with the semantic role of dative and which is nearly always a human entity (Givón 2001).
Apart from these particularities in the object position, Madeira Portuguese has syncretised the stressed pronoun in si (or consigo when the preposition is com ‘with’) within a prepositional phrase to refer to non-T forms: 176 times in contrast with 26 occurrences of stressed pronouns homophonous to the subject form. Nonetheless, the usage of si is only 3sg and cannot refer to a plural entity. The relevance of si is the fact that it is useful for você and o senhor / a senhora, again reflecting the problematic feature of singular pronouns that are not tu. By resorting to si, speakers avoid the explicit production of the address, which may only arise as the subject. This applies to noun phrases and null subject plus 3sg too. The most important pragmatic decision nowadays in the singular in syntactic terms is the production of the subject, while si has been applied in the prepositional phrase as a solution in this grammatical context.
5.4.2.Extension of the 3pl anchoring vocês
In the previous paragraphs, I highlighted the fact that, even though vocês is syntactically 3pl, European Portuguese is characterised by exhibiting agreement mismatches between the pronoun, verb and reflexive (3pl) and possessives and objects (2pl). This does not happen in Brazilian Portuguese where vocês systematically induces 3pl, but Portugal also presents different extension of the 3pl, depending on the geographical area. In the case of Madeira, in Table 13 I depict the distribution of agreement referring to vocês.
Vocês and its agreements
STRESSED PRONOUN
REFLEXIVE
VERB
ACCUSATIVE
DATIVE
POSSESSIVE
311 3pl (100%)
79 3pl (100%)
316 3pl (100%)
89 2pl (80%)
22 3pl (20%)
99 2pl (94%)
6 3pl (6%)
47 2pl (96%)
2 3pl (4%)
Table 13 pinpoints that any syntactic element anchoring vocês is coherently inflected in 3pl as long as it is the subject, the reflexive and the verb. The rest of the elements swing between the 2pl and the 3pl, but not to the same degree. Whereas the accusative gives more occurrences of 3pl (though the 2pl is the major one), there is more reluctance towards the dative as regards 3pl and, finally, the possessive hardly inflects in 3pl. It must be stated that the prepositional phrase has also given vocês as the preferred stressed pronoun, except when it is preceded by the preposition com (‘with’). In this case, the usage of the 3pl is 86% (19 times), and the strategy convosco¸ syntactically 2pl, appears 3 times (14%).
The picture provided with by the data clearly establishes that Madeira follows the same pattern as continental Portugal, since the 3pl undergoes a specific hierarchy: subject > verb / reflexive > accusative > dative > possessive. The behaviour of the accusative allows for analysing the path transited by the 3pl, since it starts emerging in this case when the pronoun is enclitic (10 times in 3pl versus 15 times 2pl) while there is a leaning towards proclisis in 2pl (10 times 3pl versus 74 times 2pl) (33-34).
Já
não
quero
Now
no
1sg.pres.want
vê-los
mais (M+60H Camacha, rural)
inf.see+3pl.acc.
more
'I don’t want to see you anymore'
Já
vos
tinha
avisado
que
Now
2pl.acc.
1sg.pst.have
pcp.warn
that
isto
ia
acontecer (F-30H Caniço rural)
this
3sg.pst.go
inf.happen
'I had already warned you that this was going to happen'
The rise of the 3pl in enclitic accusatives in my corpus has been mainly produced after an infinitive. The concatenation of the sound /r/ plus the sound /v/ might have been a phonetic context that has triggered the conversion of the 2pl into a 3pl. This hypothesis is supported by an analogous phenomenon witnessed in Spanish in the 16th century. According to Calderón Campos (2010), the current 2pl unstressed pronoun is os and not vos as it was in the Middle Ages, because the pronunciation of the sequence /r/+/v/, such as the one in Portuguese, produced the gradual loss of /v/ in these contexts. Once vos turned itself into os whenever it followed an /r/, speakers ended up generalising os in every situation regardless of the phonological constraints. But the final shift of vos into os commenced in these specific phonological sequences. The same seems to apply to the establishment of the 3pl in the accusative in Portuguese.
However, this shift is firstly attested in the accusative, since the same speakers that preferred 3pl in the accusative after /r/ did not produce a 3pl in the dative after /r/. Therefore, the spread of the 3pl must necessarily undergo the abovementioned hierarchy. This continuum is not arbitrary either, but it responds to the grammatical behaviour that many phenomena follow when they are subject to grammatical case (Blake 2004). For instance, causativisation, passivisation and relativisation are also constrained by this hierarchy (Comrie 1976, Keenan & Comrie 1977). English can make a passive out of an indirect object (dative) because it can do so out of a direct object (accusative). The languages capable of relativising a genitive (whose) can do so because they are able to relativise the subject, the direct object and the indirect object. Hence, the extension of the 3pl in vocês obeys this same feature and can even have a counterpart in Andalusian Spanish, where the spread of the 3pl referring to the pronoun ustedes runs across this same hierarchy at the expense of the 2pl that refers to the eliminated pronoun vosotros (Lara Bermejo 2018a, 2020a).
5.4.3. The loss of vós
The loss of vós as 2pl has already been discussed: the scarcity of speakers who have expressed it in expected contexts is proof of this fact. But this tendency can even be underpinned by the agreement pattern referring to the stressed form, for not all informants expressed a verb in 2pl right after the subject, but two of them preferred a 3pl agreement, suggesting again that vocês has virtually established itself as the plural pronoun in any T and N situation (35-36). It is pertinent to recall that only ten people produced vós, so 20% them are already spreading the 3pl even with this referent.
Vós
são
o
futuro
2pl.nom.
3pl.pres.be
the
future
da
igreja (M30-60L Santana rural)
of+the
church
'You are the future of the church'
Vós
sois
o
futuro
da
igreja
e
2pl.nom.
2pl.pres.be
the
future
of+the
church
and
desejo
que
sigam
uma
1sg.pres.wish
that
3pl.pres.follow
a
vida
cristã (F+60L Porto Moniz rural)
life
Christian
'You are the future of the church and I wish you to follow a Christian life'
The instances pinpoint the grammatical instability of vós, as a proportion of the few speakers who resorted to it were not coherent in agreeing on all the elements in 2pl. While (35) already enables the verb in 3pl right after the treatment, (36) shows that, despite the first verb inflecting in 2pl, the second prefers the 3pl though its referent is the same one. This apparent contradiction, according to Corbett (2006), responds to a change in progress that opposes two different agreements. The extension of one of them at the expense of the other reveals the deletion of the latter. However, this process entails not only gradualness, but the coexistence of the new agreement with the one which is being ousted. This is exactly what (35-36) suggest.
6. CONCLUSIONS
This article represents a considerable breakthrough in Portuguese and politeness studies, mainly referring to Madeira. The lack of in-depth research regarding actual data on one of the most complex phenomena in Lusophone linguistics is still an incognita that is being slowly unveiled. Thanks to this study, it is possible to analyse the current reality in the Madeira archipelago. I summarise the main achievements below.
The field study carried out has shown that present day Madeira exhibits a politeness paradigm that resembles that of continental Portugal, but with a few divergences. Even though it possesses a tripartite system in singular and a bipartite one in plural, no archaic form whatsoever has been elicited and the pronoun você in singular has appeared very frequently. Nevertheless, this usage coexists with that of null subject and noun phrases for N situations, although every now and then it has also appeared in the addressing of someone in a higher position and more frequently in the addressing of someone in a lower position, when the relation between the participants was asymmetrical. In any case, there is a preference for the explicit subject rather than the avoidance thereof, irrespective of the choice for a pronoun or a noun phrase.
From a geolinguistic point of view, the main characteristic resides in the extension of the 3pl referring to vocês, for it has already shifted onto the accusative in the east and some parts of southern Madeira, while it is also attested in the dative in Porto Santo and other areas within populated areas of Madeira. It is in Funchal and its surroundings where the 3pl can also emerge in the possessive, completely ousting any remnance of 2pl.
The sociolinguistic study has revealed that men tend to employ você more and that the elderly are more inclined to consider the family as a hierarchical entity. However, pragmatic solidarity has increased in the plural, for vocês covers the majority of contexts to the detriment of os senhores. Likewise, the usage of vós for reverential contexts such as church is in clear disuse by favouring the resort to vocês, and the knowledge of the proper name of the interlocutor turns out to be essential in order to express a subject in situations where no pronoun is considered adequate.
From a grammatical perspective, the extension of the 3pl anchoring vocês follows a specific continuum that obeys cross-linguistic phenomena, but the establishment of the 3pl in the accusative seems to be brought about by phonetic reasons. Moreover, in si speakers have syncretised the pronoun to be employed in a prepositional phrase, regardless of whether it refers to você or o senhor.
Acknowledgments
I am deeply grateful to Professor Aline Bazenga, from University of Madeira, whose support has been crucial for the success of this research. Her commitment to finding informants and to making my stay as comfortable and productive as possible is priceless and will never be rewarded as deserved. This paper is dedicated to her and, last but not least, to all the people who took part directly and indirectly in the survey.
ReferencesAguiar, Joana & Maria da Conceição de Paiva. 2017. Vocês tenham cuidado, sois educadas para isso? Second person pronouns in Braga speech. In Pilar P. Barbosa, Maria da Conceição de Paiva & Celeste Rodrigues (eds.), Studies on variation in Portuguese. 135‑152. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.AguiarJda Conceição de PaivaMP. BarbosaP.da Conceição de PaivaM.RodriguesC.2017135152AmsterdamPhiladelphiaJohn BenjaminsVocês tenham cuidado, sois educadas para isso? Second person pronouns in Braga speechBacelar de Nascimento, Maria Fernanda, Eugênia Duarte & Amália Mendes. 2018. Sobre formas de tratamento no português europeu e brasileiro. Diadorim, 20, 245-262.Bacelar de NascimentoM. F.DuarteEMendesA.Sobre formas de tratamento no português europeu e brasileiro201820245262Bazenga, Aline 2019. Forms of address in an insular variety of European Portuguese (Funchal, Madeira island): a Labovian analysis. Conference presented at Languages, Nations, Culture LNC 2019. Stockholm: University of Stockholm, 24th May 2019.BazengaA20190524Forms of address in an insular variety of European Portuguese (Funchal, Madeira island): a Labovian analysisStockholmUniversity of StockholmBazenga, Aline. 2022. Formas de tratamento de segunda pessoa de singular em português: representações e crenças de falantes madeirenses. Arquivo Histórico da Madeira, 4, 1-35.BazengaAFormas de tratamento de segunda pessoa de singular em português: representações e crenças de falantes madeirenses20224135Bazenga, Aline, Catarina Andrade & Lorena da Silva Rodrigues. 2016. Variantes sintáticas (padrão e não padrão) em português: representações sociais e atitudes linguísticas de falantes madeirenses. In Abdelhak Razky (ed.), Atas do IV CIDS. 1-15. Paris: Université Paris-Sorbonne.BazengaAAndradeCda Silva RodriguesLRazkyA2016115ParisUniversité Paris-SorbonneVariantes sintáticas (padrão e não padrão) em português: representações sociais e atitudes linguísticas de falantes madeirensesBazenga, Aline & Lorena da Silva Rodrigues. 2019. O uso do clítico lhe em variedades do português. In António Manuel Ferreira, Carlos Morais, Maria Fernanda Brasete & Rosa Lídia Coimbra (eds.), Pelos mares da língua portuguesa. 17-33. Aveiro: University of Aveiro.BazengaAda Silva RodriguesLFerreiraA. M.MoraisCBraseteM. F.CoimbraR. L.20191733AveiroUniversity of AveiroO uso do clítico lhe em variedades do portuguêsBenigni, Laura & Elizabeth Bates. 1977. Interazione sociale e linguaggio: analisi pragmatica dei pronomi allocutivi italiani. In Raffaelle Simone & Giulianella Ruggiero (eds.), Aspetti sociolinguistici dell’Italia contemporanea. 141-165. Roma: Bulzoni.BenigniLBatesESimoneRRuggieroG1977141165RomaBulzoniInterazione sociale e linguaggio: analisi pragmatica dei pronomi allocutivi italianiBlake, Barry J. 2004. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.BlakeB2004CambridgeCambridge University PressBrown, Roger & Albert Gilman. 1960. The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity. In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language. 253-276. Cambridge: MIT.BrownRSebeokT. A.1960253276CambridgeMITThe Pronouns of Power and SolidarityCalderón Campos, Miguel. 2010. Variantes formales y valores semánticos de (v)os(otros) en la diacronía del español. In Rosa M.ª Castañer Martín & Vicente Lagüéns Gracia (eds.), De moneda nunca usada. Estudios dedicados a José María Enguita Utrilla. 135-147. Zaragoza: CSIC.Calderón CamposMCastañer MartínR. M.Lagüéns GraciaV2010135147ZaragozaCSICVariantes formales y valores semánticos de (v)os(otros) en la diacronía del españolCarreira, Maria Helena Araújo. 2003. Les formes allocutives en portugais européen: évolution, valeurs et fonctionnements discursifs. Franco-British Studies, 33/34, 35-45.CarreiraM. H. A.Les formes allocutives en portugais européen: évolution, valeurs et fonctionnements discursifs2003354533/34Comrie, Bernard. 1976. The syntax of causative constructions: cross-language similarities and divergences. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), The grammar of causative constructions. 261-312. New York: Academic Press.ComrieBShibataniM1976261312New YorkAcademic PressThe syntax of causative constructions: cross-language similarities and divergencesCook, Manuela. 2019. N-V-T, a framework for the analysis of social dynamics in address pronouns. In Paul Boussac (ed.), The social Dynamics of Pronominal Systems. A comparative approach. 17-34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CookMBoussacP20191734AmsterdamJohn BenjaminsN-V-T, a framework for the analysis of social dynamics in address pronounsCorbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CorbettG. G.2006CambridgeCambridge University PressCunha, Celso & Luís Filipe Lindley Cintra. 1992. Nova gramática do português contemporâneo. Lisbon: João Sá da Costa.CunhaCLindley CintraL. F.1992LisbonJoão Sá da CostaDe Souza, Camila Duarte & Célia Regina dos Santos Lopes. 2015. Estudo histórico do complemento acusativo de 2ª pessoa. Fórum Lingüístico, 12(4), 900-914.Duarte De SouzaCdos Santos LopesC. R.Estudo histórico do complemento acusativo de 2ª pessoa2015124900914Faria, Rita. 2009. O fenómeno da delicadeza linguística em português e em inglês. Lisbon: Faculdade de Ciências Sociais Humanas.FariaR2009LisbonFaculdade de Ciências Sociais HumanasFernández-Ordóñez, Inés. 1999. Leísmo, laísmo y loísmo. In Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. 1319-1390. Madrid: Espasa.Fernández-OrdóñezIBosqueIDemonteV.199913191390MadridEspasaLeísmo, laísmo y loísmoGarcía Godoy, María Teresa. 2008. La reconstrucción del sistema de tratamientos en el español de Andalucía (siglo XIX). In Esteban Tomás Montoro del Arco, Francisco José Sánchez García & M.ª Ángeles López Vallejo (eds), Nuevas perspectivas en torno a la diacronía lingüística. 31-64. Granada: Universidad de Granada.García GodoyM. T.Montoro del ArcoE. T.Sánchez GarcíaF. J.López VallejoM. A.20083164GranadaUniversidad de GranadaLa reconstrucción del sistema de tratamientos en el español de Andalucía (siglo XIX)García Godoy, María Teresa. 2010. El tratamiento a los progenitores en el español peninsular (siglo XIX). Contraste de dos variedades geográficas. In Martin Hummel, Bettina Kluge & M.ª Eugenia Vázquez Laslop (eds.), Formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en el mundo hispánico. 595-617. Mexico City: El Colegio de México / Universität Karl‑Franzens Graz.García GodoyM. T.HummelM.KlugeBVázquez LaslopM. E.2010595617Mexico CityEl Colegio de MéxicoUniversität Karl‑Franzens GrazEl tratamiento a los progenitores en el español peninsular (siglo XIX). Contraste de dos variedades geográficas.Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: an introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.GivónT2001AmsterdamJohn BenjaminsGómez Seibane, Sara. 2021. Conectando las formas de tratamiento y el leísmo en la correspondencia de los siglos XVIII y XIX: el leísmo de cortesía. Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana, 38, 129-150.Gómez SeibaneSConectando las formas de tratamiento y el leísmo en la correspondencia de los siglos XVIII y XIX: el leísmo de cortesía202138129150Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. New York: Cambridge University Press.HeineB2005New YorkCambridge University PressHelmbrecht, Johannes. 2005. Typologie und Diffusion von Höflichkeitspronomina in Europa. Folia Linguistica, 39(3/4), 417-452.HelmbrechtJTypologie und Diffusion von Höflichkeitspronomina in Europa2005394174523/4Hickey, Leo & Miranda Stewart. 2005. Politenessin Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.HickeyLStewartM2005BerlinMouton de GruyterHummel, Martin, Bettina Kluge & M.ª Eugenia Vázquez Laslop. 2010. Formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en el mundo hispánico. Ciudad de México: El Colegio de México/Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz.HummelMKlugeBVázquez LaslopM. E.2010Ciudad de MéxicoEl Colegio de México/Karl-Franzens-Universität GrazHummel, Martin & Célia dos Santos Lopes. 2020. Address in Portuguese and Spanish. Studies in diachrony and diachronic reconstruction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.HummelMdos Santos LopesC2020BerlinMouton de GruyterKeenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63-99.KeenanE. L.ComrieBNoun phrase accessibility and universal grammar197786399Lara Bermejo, Víctor. 2016. Spontaneous dubbing as a tool for eliciting linguistic data: The case of second person plural inflections in Andalusian Spanish. In Marie-Hélène Côté, Remco Knooihuizen & John Nerbonne (eds.), The future of dialects: Selected papers from Methods in Dialectology XV. 261–281. Berlin: Language Science Press.Lara BermejoVCôtéM. H.KnooihuizenRNerbonneJ2016261281BerlinLanguage Science Presspontaneous dubbing as a tool for eliciting linguistic data: The case of second person plural inflections in Andalusian SpanishLara Bermejo, Víctor. 2018a. La cortesía en la Península Ibérica: dialectología del Sprachbund suroccidental. Bern: Peter Lang.Lara BermejoV2018BernPeter LangLara Bermejo, Víctor. 2018b. Acomodación en los pronombres de tratamiento de ecuatorianos en España. Lengua y Migración, 10(1), 7-31.Lara BermejoVAcomodación en los pronombres de tratamiento de ecuatorianos en España2018101731Lara Bermejo, Víctor. 2020a. Forms of address in the south-western Sprachbund of the Iberian Peninsula: one hundred years of evolution in western Andalusian and European Portuguese. In Martin Hummel & Célia dos Santos Lopes (eds.), Address in Portuguese and Spanish. Studies in diachrony and diachronic reconstruction. 71-109. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Lara BermejoVHummelMdos Santos LopesC202071109BerlinMouton de GruyterForms of address in the south-western Sprachbund of the Iberian Peninsula: one hundred years of evolution in western Andalusian and European PortugueseLara Bermejo, Víctor. 2020b. Actitudes hacia el tuteo en la España borbónica. In Manuel Rivas Zancarrón & Victoriano Gaviño Rodríguez (eds.), Creencias y actitudes ante la lengua en la España y América de los siglos XVIII y XIX. 175-192. Madrid / Frankfurt: Iberoamericana / Vervuert.Lara BermejoVRivas ZancarrónMGaviño RodríguezV2020175192Madrid / FrankfurtIberoamericana / VervuertActitudes hacia el tuteo en la España borbónicaLara Bermejo, Víctor. 2022a. Historia de los pronombres de tratamiento iberorromances: Península Ibérica, América, África y Filipinas. Madrid / Frankfurt: Iberoamericana / Vervuert.Lara BermejoV2022Madrid / FrankfurtIberoamericana / VervuertLara Bermejo, Víctor. 2022b. El pronombre vosotros bajo el reinado de los Borbones. Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica, 70(1), 3-26.Lara BermejoVEl pronombre vosotros bajo el reinado de los Borbones2022701326Lara Bermejo, Víctor. The history of second person pronouns in European Portuguese. Journal of Historical Pragmatics. [In press].Lara BermejoVThe history of second person pronouns in European PortugueseLara Bermejo, Víctor & Ana Bruno Guilherme. 2018. The politeness of você in European Portuguese. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 11(2), 337-366.Lara BermejoVGuilhermeA. BThe politeness of você in European Portuguese2018122337366Lara Bermejo, Víctor & Ana Bruno Guilherme. 2021. The diachrony of pronouns of address in 20th-century European Portuguese. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 14(1), 39-79.Lara BermejoVGuilhermeA. BThe diachrony of pronouns of address in 20th-century European Portuguese20211413979Mira Mateus, Maria Helena, Inês Duarte & Isabel Hub Faria. 2006. Gramática da língua portuguesa. Lisbon: Caminho.Mira MateusMInês DuarteM. H.Hub FariaI2006LisbonCaminhoMolina Martos, Isabel. 2020. Linguistic Change and Social Transformation: the Spread of tuteo in Restoration Spain and Second Republic (1875-1939). In Martin Hummel & Célia dos Santos Lopes (eds.), Address in Portuguese and Spanish. Studies in Diachrony and Diachronic Reconstruction. 443-480. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Molina MartosIHummelMdos Santos LopesC2020443480BerlinMouton de GruyterLinguistic Change and Social Transformation: the Spread of tuteo in Restoration Spain and Second Republic (1875-1939)Molina Martos, Isabel. 2021. Cambio lingüístico y transformación social: formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en España (1860-1940). Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana, 38, 173-195.Molina MartosICambio lingüístico y transformación social: formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en España (1860-1940)202138173195Paulston, Christina. 1984. Pronouns of Address in Swedish: Social Class Semantics and a Changing System. In John Baugh & Joel Sherzer (eds.), Language in Use: Readings in Sociolinguistics. 268-291. New Jersey: Prentince Hall.PaulstonCBaughJSherzerJ1984268291New JerseyPrentince HallPronouns of Address in Swedish: Social Class Semantics and a Changing SystemRamos, Jania M. 2011. De nome a pronome: um estudo sobre o item o senhor. Caligrama, 16(2), 69-84.RamosJ. M.De nome a pronome: um estudo sobre o item o senhor20111626984Raposo, Eduardo Buzaglo Paiva, Maria Fernanda Bacelar do Nascimento, Maria Antónia Coelho da Mota, Luísa Segura & Amália Mendes. 2020. Gramática do português. Lisbon: Fundação Calouste GulbenkianBuzaglo Paiva RaposoEBacelar do NascimentoM. FCoelho da MotaM. A.SeguraLMendes.A2020LisbonFundação Calouste GulbenkianRegião Autónoma da Madeira. 2021. Censos 2021. Funchal: Direção Regional de Estatística da Madeira.Região Autónoma da Madeira2021FunchalDireção Regional de Estatística da MadeiraRigatuso, Elisabeth M. 1992. Evolución de las formas de tratamiento en el español bonaerense (1830-1930). Bahía Blanca: Universidad Nacional del Sur.RigatusoE1992Bahía BlancaUniversidad Nacional del Sur.Rosado, José. 2003. Linguagem popular portossantense. Xarabanda, 14, 43-46.RosadoJLinguagem popular portossantense2003144346Scollon, Ron, Suzanne Wong Scollon & Rodney H. Jones. 1995. Intercultural communication. A discourse approach. Malden: Blackwell.ScollonRWong ScollonSJonesR. H.1995MaldenBlackwellSegura da Cruz, Maria Luísa. 1991. O falar de Odeleite. Lisbon: University of Lisbon.Segura da CruzM. L.1991LisbonUniversity of LisbonSiewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.SiewierskaA2004CambridgeCambridge University PressSilva, Fernando Augusto. 1950. Vocabulário popular do arquipélago da Madeira: alguns subsídios para o seu estudo. Funchal: Junta Geral do Funchal.SilvaF. A1950FunchalJunta Geral do FunchalSinner, Carsten. 2010. ¿Cómo te hablé de vos o de tú? Uso y acomodación de las formas de tratamiento pore migrantes y turistas argentinos en España y Alemania. In Martin Hummel, Bettina Kluge & María Eugenia Vázquez Laslop (eds.), Formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en el mundo hispánico. 829-855. Mexico City: El Colegio de México / Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz.SinnerCHummelMKlugeBVázquez LaslopM. E.2010829855Mexico CityEl Colegio de México / Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz¿Cómo te hablé de vos o de tú? Uso y acomodación de las formas de tratamiento pore migrantes y turistas argentinos en España y AlemaniaSoares, Urbano Canuto. 1914. Subsídios para o cancioneiro do arquipélago da Madeira. Tradições populares e vocábulos do arquipélago da Madeira. Revista Lusitana, 17, 135-158.SoaresU. C.Subsídios para o cancioneiro do arquipélago da Madeira. Tradições populares e vocábulos do arquipélago da Madeira191417135158Van Coetsem, Frans. 1988. Loan phonology and the two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris.Van CoetsemF1988DordrechtForisVázquez Laslop, María Eugenia. 2010. Formas de tratamiento parlamentario entre el poder legislativo y el poder ejecutivo en México (1862-2005). In Martin Hummel, Bettina Kluge & María Eugenia Vázquez Laslop (eds.), Formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en el mundo hispánico. 619-648. Mexico City: El Colegio de México / Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz.Vázquez LaslopM. E.HummelMKlugeBVázquez LaslopM. E.2010619648Mexico CityEl Colegio de México / Karl-Franzens-Universität GrazFormas de tratamiento parlamentario entre el poder legislativo y el poder ejecutivo en México (1862-2005)