Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:33:45.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Managing subjectivity: Omission and expression of first-person singular object a mí in Spanish media discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2018

María José Serrano
María José Serrano*
Affiliation:
Universidad de La Laguna
*
mjserran@ull.edu.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In considering the cognitive notion of informativeness, variants of the Spanish first-person singular object a mí ‘to me’, ‘myself’ convey different meanings. These meanings are used to pursue communicative goals in discursive interactions. A qualitative examination of specific examples of first-person singular object a mí variants (omitted, preverbal, and postverbal) as well as a quantitative analysis of these variants across different socio-professional affiliations of speakers was conducted to ascertain how these variants contribute to the construction of communicative styles based on the cognitive dimension of subjectivity. This article demonstrates that these forms and their meanings are unevenly distributed across the socio-professional affiliations of speakers; thus, it may be concluded that variation of first-person singular object a mí shape different communicative styles.

Résumé

À la lumière de la notion cognitive de l'informativité, les variantes de l'objet à la première personne du singulier en espanol a mí ‘à moi’, ‘me’ véhiculent des significations différentes. Ces significations sont utilisées pour atteindre des buts communicatifs dans des interactions discursives. Un examen qualitatif d'exemples d'objets à la première personne du singulier (omis, préverbaux et postverbaux) ainsi qu'une analyse quantitative de ces variantes à travers les affiliations socioprofessionnelles des locuteurs ont été effectués pour déterminer comment ces variantes contribuent à la construction de styles communicatifs basés sur la dimension cognitive de la subjectivité. Cet article démontre que ces formes et leurs significations sont inégalement réparties parmi les affiliations socioprofessionnelles des locuteurs; ainsi, on peut conclure que la variation de l'objet à la première personne du singulier a mí peut contribuer à de différents styles communicatifs.

Keywords

discourseperson objectssyntaxstylevariationdiscoursobjets personnelssyntaxestylevariation
Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 63 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 423 - 443
Copyright
© Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This paper is a part of the development of the research project FFI2016-74825P funded by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad and by “Programa María Rosa Alonso de ayudas a la investigación en Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales”, Cabildo Insular de Tenerife.

References

Aijón Oliva, Miguel Ángel. 2006. Variación morfosintáctica e interacción social: Análisis del paradigma de los clíticos verbales españoles en los medios de comunicación [Morphosyntactic variation and social interaction: Analysis of the paradigm of Spanish verbal clitics in the media]. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.Google Scholar
Aijón Oliva, Miguel Ángel. 2017a. The participants as objects: Variation and meaning of first- and second-person objects in Spanish. Studia Linguistica 71(2): 1–37.Google Scholar
Aijón Oliva, Miguel Ángel. 2017b. Speaker self-profiling through discursive indexation and syntactic encoding in Spanish radio talk. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 6(1): 175–199.Google Scholar
Aijón Oliva, Miguel Ángel, and Serrano, María José. 2013. Style in syntax: Investigating variation in Spanish pronoun subjects. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Angermuller, Johannes, Maingueneau, Dominique, and Wodak, Ruth. 2014. Enunciative pragmatics: Introduction. In The discourse studies reader: Main currents in theory and analysis, ed. Angermuller, Johannes, Maingueneau, Dominique, and Wodak, Ruth, 135–139. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects, ed. Sanders, Ted, Schilperoord, Joost and Spooren, Wilbert, 29–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2008. Pragmatics and Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Beaugrande, Robert A., and Dressler, Wolfgang U.. 1997. Introducción a la lingüística del texto [Introduction to text linguistics]. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Bell, Alan. 2016. Succeeding waves: Seeking sociolinguistic theory for the twenty-first century. In Sociolinguistics: Theoretical debates, ed. Coupland, Nikolas, 391–416. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bhat, D. N. S. 2004. Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Hopper, Paul, eds. 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jennifer. 1987. Syntactic variation, the linguistic variable, and sociolinguistic theory. Linguistics 25(2): 257–282.Google Scholar
Company Company, Concepción. 2001. Multiple dative-marking grammaticalization: Spanish as a special kind of primary object language. Studies in Language 25(1): 1–47.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 2007. Style: Language variation and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Brad. 1996. ‘Pragmatic weight’ and Spanish subject pronouns: The pragmatic and discourse uses of tú and yo in spoken Madrid Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 26(4): 543–565.Google Scholar
De Cock, Barbara. 2014. Profiling participants in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic variation as social practice. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Enríquez, Emilia. 1984. El pronombre personal sujeto en la lengua española hablada en Madrid [The personal pronoun subject in the Spanish language spoken in Madrid]. Madrid: CSIC.Google Scholar
Fernández Soriano, Olga. 1999. El pronombre personal: formas y distribuciones. Pronombres átonos y tónicos [The personal pronoun: forms and distributions. Weak and strong pronouns]. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española [Descriptive grammar of the Spanish language], ed. Bosque, Ignacio and Demonte, Violeta, 1209–1273. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2006. Logic, subjectivity and the semantic/pragmatic distinction. In Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity, ed. Athanasiadou, Angeliki, Canakis, Costas and Cornillie, Bert, 41–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2009. Word order. In Grammar, Meaning and Pragmatics, ed. Brisard, Frank, Östman, Jan-Ola, and Verschueren, Jef, 289–300. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
García-Miguel, José Manuel. 2015. Variable coding and object alignment in Spanish: A corpus-based approach. Folia Linguistica 49(1): 205–256.Google Scholar
Gardelle, Laure, and Sorlin, Sandrine. 2015. Personal pronouns: An exposition. In The pragmatics of personal pronouns, ed. Gardelle, Laure and Sorlin, Sandrine, 3–24. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff, and Wierzbicka, Anna. 1994. Semantic lexical universals: Theory and empirical findings. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givon, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gries, Stephan T., and Stefanowitsch, Anatol, eds. 2006. Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus- based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. 2014. Language as social semiotics. In The discourse studies reader: Main currents in theory and analysis, ed. Angermuller, Johannes, Maingueneau, Dominique and Wodak, Ruth, 262–271. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2013. Argument indexing: A conceptual framework for the syntax of bound person forms. In Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, ed. Bakker, Dik and Haspelmath, Martin, 197–225. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 2005. Le discours en interaction. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Julia. 2015. Linguistic profiles: Going from form to meaning via statistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1985. Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In Iconicity in syntax, ed. Haiman, John, 109–150. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2000a. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2000b. Estructura de la cláusula en la gramática cognoscitiva [Structure of the clause in cognitive grammar]. In Estudios cognoscitivos del español [Cognitive studies of Spanish]. Special volume of Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, ed. Maldonado, Ricardo, 19–65.Google Scholar
Llorente, Antonio, and Mondéjar, José. 1974. La conjugación objetiva en español [The objective conjugation in Spanish]. Revista Española de Lingüística 4: 1–60.Google Scholar
Maingueneau, Dominique. 2014. The scene of enunciation. In The discourse studies reader: Main currents in theory and analysis, eds. Angermuller, Johannes, Maingueneau, Dominique and Wodak, Ruth, 146–154. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Montgomery, Martin. 2011. The accountability interview, politics and change in the UK public service broadcasting. In Talking politics in broadcast media: Cross-cultural perspectives on political interviewing, journalism and accountability, ed. Ekström, Mats and Patrona, Marianna, 33–35. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2014. Beyond intersubjectification: Textual uses of modality and mood in subordinate clauses as part of speech-act orientation. In Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in Grammar and Discourse: Theoretical and descriptive advances, ed. Brems, Lieselotte, Ghèsquiere, Lobke, and van de Velde, Freek, 29–53. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2014. Notions of (inter)subjectivity. In Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in Grammar and Discourse: Theoretical and descriptive advances, ed. Brems, Lieselotte, Ghèsquiere, Lobke, and van de Velde, Freek, 53–76. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2015. Subjectivity: Between discourse and conceptualization. Journal of Pragmatics, 86: 106–110.Google Scholar
Perek, Frank. 2015. Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Pütz, Martin, Robinson, Justyna, and Reif, Monika, eds. 2014. Cognitive sociolinguistics: Social and cultural variation in cognition and language use. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rampton, Ben. 2006. Language in late modernity: Interaction in an urban school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rivas, Javier. 2016. Verb-object compounds with Spanish dar ‘give’: An emergent gustar ‘like’ – type construction. Word 62(1): 1–21.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk C., ed. 1999. Clitics in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David, Tagliamonte, Sali, and Smith, E.. 2012. GoldVarb Lion. A multivariate analysis application for Macintosh and Windows. Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto / Department of Mathematics, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Serrano, María José, and Aijón Oliva, Miguel Ángel. 2011. Syntactic variation and communicative style. Language Sciences 33: 138–153.Google Scholar
Serrano, María José. 2017a. A variable cognitive and communicative resource in Spanish: The first-person plural subject and object. Journal of Pragmatics 108: 131–147.Google Scholar
Serrano, María José. 2017b. Going beyond address forms: Variation and style in the use of the second-person pronouns tú and usted. Pragmatics 27(1): 87–115.Google Scholar
Shin, Naomi Lapidus, and Otheguy, Ricardo. 2005. Overt nonspecific ellos in Spanish in New York. Spanish in Context 2(2): 157–74.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. 2006. Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Theodoropoulou, Irene. 2014. Sociolinguistics of style and social class in Contemporary Athens. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vázquez Rozas, Victoria. 2006. Gustar-type verbs. In Functional approaches to Spanish syntax: Lexical semantics, discourse and transitivity, ed. Clancy Clements, J. and Yoon, Jiyoung, 80–114. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Virtanen, Tuija. 2004. Approaches to cognition through text and context. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Weiner, Judith, and Labov, William. 1983. Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19(1): 29–58.Google Scholar
Wiese, Heike, and Simon, Horst J.. 2002. Grammatical properties of pronouns and their representation. An exposition. In Pronouns. Grammar and Representation, ed. Simon, Horst J. and Wiese, Heike, 1–22. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1977. On clitics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1994. What's a clitic? In Clitics. A comprehensive bibliography 1892–1991, ed. Nevis, Joel A., Joseph, Brian D., Wanner, Dieter and Zwicky, Arnold M., xii–xx. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar