Resumen de Estudio diacrónico y contrastivo de los pronombres de cortesía en español con referencia al portugués
- español
Se ha considerado que el sistema dicotómico pronominal de /tú usted/ (España, México) y de / vos usted/ (Argentina) está arraigado desde las primeras épocas. Este trabajo pretende reconsiderar el sistema pronominal de la escala de cortesía en español desde múltiples disciplinas: 1) Lingüística románica; 2) Teoría lingüística de la cortesía; 3) Filología cristiana japonesa y filología japonesa tradicional; 4) Análisis textuales diacrónicos del español y del portugués; y 5) Observación diacrónico-contrastiva de dos variedades del español (de México y de Argentina). Hemos propuesto dos metodologías para describir y aclarar diacrónicamente los sistemas de cortesía del español peninsular en contraste con los del portugués peninsular y de las dos variantes españolas americanas: I el método descriptivo de cortesía múltiple (T-V¹~n); II los referentes personales ampliados (categorías I VII). La evolución del español peninsular puede clasificarse principalmente en tres fases: I ( entre el siglo XIII y el siglo XV), II ( los siglos XVI y XVII), y III (a partir de la segunda mitad del siglo XVIII) con las escalas de cortesía y las categorías de referentes personales ampliados. La primera fase (a) el siglo XIII (época de binarismo): en singular V cast. I vós T tú, plural V T vós La primera fase (b) el siglo XIV (La época de transición 1) singular :V3 cast.VI (tratamiento construccional-morfosintáctico)- V2 cat. I vós cortés -V1 cat. I vós familiar, - T cat. I tú ; plural V cat. I vós T vós vós otros (vosotros). La primera fase (c) La segunda mitad del siglo XV (época de transición 2) singular: V3 cat. II V2 I vós cortés V1 I vós familair T I. tú; plural V2 II V1 vós cortés- T cat. I vós vosotros II. La segunda fase ( siglos XVI y XVII) singular V3 cat. II, IV V2 cat. I, vós cortés , cat. V (él,ella), cat. VI, V1 cat. I vós familiar T cat. I tú; plural V2 cat. II, III V1 cat.I, V T I vó vosotros III A partir de la segunda mitad del siglo XVIII La tercera fase (a) Entre la segunda mitad del siglo XVIII y el primer tercio del siglo XX singular: V3 cat. II, III(a) , IV V2 I vós cortés, III(b) usted, III (c) , V, VI V1 cat. I vós familiarT tú; plural V2 cat.II, III (a), V1 III (b) ustedes, III (c),VI T cat. I vosotros La tercera fase (b) A partir de la segunda mitad del siglo XX sing. / pl. V2 II, III (a), IV V1 III (b) usted, ustedes T I tú , vosotros Podemos suponer dos estratos de cortesía separados psicológicamente entre V2 (nivel de protocolo) y V1 Familiar- T 1) de protocolo (nivel de lenguaje normal) A pesar de que el español y el portugués cuentan con muchas similitudes en cuanto a las tendencias evolutivas, se ha revelado que comenzaron a divergir visiblemente hacia sistemas distintos a partir de la segunda mitad del siglo XVIII. Asimismo, las evoluciones del español de México y de Argentina siguieron procesos similares a los de la escala de cortesía múltiple en el español peninsular. La divulgación de usted del nivel V² en el siglo XIX y V¹ en el siglo XX tanto como de ustedes (distribución vacilante entre V¹ ~ T) se estableció en un período más tardío que la época supuesta inductivamente por el dinamismo semántico binario de T y V. En el español de Argentina, el empleo de vos singular llegó a arraigarse gradualmente como vos íntimo a partir de la segunda mitad del siglo XIX, extendiéndose su vitalidad desde el nivel coloquial hasta el literario. Para explicar las tendencias evolutivas del español y del portugués, el principio de degradación semántica de deferencia permite hacer referencias más adecuadas a los trayectos evolutivos del español y del portugués, complementándose por las dos metodología propuestas En resumen, los estudios diacrónicos-contrastivos del español peninsular, de México y de Argentina y el portugués ponen relieve que el sistema actual de pronombres de cortesía no es herencia directa del sistema binario (T/V), sino que es un resultado de la interacción desde el siglo XV en adelante entre el sistema binario y el de cortesía múltiple (V1N)
- English
When describing current Spanish pronouns of the second person, the diachronic descriptive method proposed by Brown & Gilman (1960) in their the Pronouns of Power and Solidarity is generally accepted as a standard semantic theory. This particular descriptive method and the traditional dichotomy of Latin school grammar have occupied a great part in the literature of the Spanish diachronic pronominal studies. The predominance in literature is derived from the dichotomic pronominal system in the early stage of 12th to 15th century and the presently existing binary pronominal scale. It has been inductively inferred that these two trends of dichotomic descriptive methods have constantly been influential and thus have been accepted implicitly as they were in the contemporary pronominal description. The diachronic observation from the 12th century to the 20th century enables us to find out the fact that morphosyntactically there is a good number of deferential pronominals in Spanish. Grammatical description, however, based upon the Latin school grammar and modern dichotomic theories has consistently been influential until today, in which series of deferential pronominal forms are listed and/or are subject to the evolution of pronominal systems for a bundle of distinctive features of [± politeness], [± power], [± solidarity], etc. Viewed in this light, we may say that, historically speaking, two dichotomic methods have prevented from revealing the essential pronominal system of the Spanish language for a long time. This study has the purpose of reconsidering the essential Spanish pronoun system from the diachronic and contrastive points of view, applying a new approach, i.e., descriptive method of multiple politeness scale. We attempt to proceed to focus on this matter from multilateral points of view, dividing this dissertation into five parts: Part I Theoretical aspects on politeness of personal pronouns and Romance Linguistics; Part II philological and linguistic approach from philological documents of Jesuit mission press; Part III Approach for analysis of the Spanish and Portuguese literate corpus; IV Diachroniccontrastive approach on Argentine and Mexican Spanish; and V Conclusion. Therefore, we proceed to observe the Spanish polite pronominal system and to construct essential pronominal framework of politeness scale in each historical stage by respective approaches as have mentioned. In addition, viewed from Romance linguistics, diachronic materials on the Portuguese honorific are applied as a contrastive method secondarily to compare the evolutional processes in both languages. In the first place, a new descriptive method is put forward based on Braun (1988) Terms of Address and Yamazaki (1964): kokugo taiguu hyougen no kennkyuu: kinsei hen (A study of Japanese honorific in the early modern age) as our methodological foundation throughout this study. In the second place, the evolutional process of major Romance languages (French, Italian, Rumanian, Catalan, Portuguese and Spanish) is described diachronically divided into mainly three historical stages by means of a descriptive method of the multiple politeness scale. Furthermore, we attempt to verify their evolutional tendency according to the fruits of Japanese honorific study, i.e., principle of semantic degradation of deference toward major Romance languages in which polite pronominal systems can be constructed theoretically by our descriptive method. The second part attempts to synchronically construct the Spanish and Portuguese polite pronominal systems deduced from the Jesuit philological documents between 16th and 17th centuries, in contrast to the pronominal systems obtained in the first part. The comparison of theoretical system and philological system is an attempted in order for making up a space of morphological register or inventory. The third part is intended to demonstrate both Spanish and Portuguese literate corpus in accordance to their chronological order for the purpose of deductively filling up the pronominal forms. An attempt is made to reconsider and reconstruct globally the polite pronominal systems, which are theoretically and philologically systems inferred. Furthermore, Part IV concentrates diachronically and contrastively on the evolutional process of Argentine and Mexican Spanish as two representative Latin American dialectal variations. They are classified into different types of dichotomic pronominal systems typologically. A comparative approach from theoretical aspect and analytic approach from literate corpus will clearly reveal their evolutional processes of Argentine and Mexican Spanish, respectively.
