In:Language Change in the 20th Century: Exploring micro-diachronic evolutions in Romance languages
Edited by Salvador Pons Bordería and Shima Salameh Jiménez
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 340] 2024
► pp. 218–239
Chapter 7Bestial and warm addressing forms in Mexican Spanish
The case of buey and cabrón
Published online: 5 January 2024
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.340.07mal
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.340.07mal
Abstract
This paper explores the evolution of two names for animals, buey ‘ox’ and cabrón
‘mail goat’, that have undergone a set of important semantic and pragmatic changes since the XIXth Century. The change from
offensive to warm and friendly addressing forms involved a series of semantic bleaching processes, mostly attested along the
XXth Century, that generated two independent, and yet, parallel networks of meanings. The loss of negative features led to the
emergence of vocative, anaphoric and discourse marking functions where the original offensive part of both words has become
almost imperceivable. It is claimed that cabrón has followed the pragmaticalization path of
buey yet in a more conservative manner, since its semantic network of meanings is still active in most
Hispanic dialects. Yet the pragmatic evolution of buey might characterize the Mexican dialect. The semantic
change of both forms is temporally located in the 1960s and it is seen as a reflex of crucial changes in Mexican contemporary
society.
Keywords: vocatives, address forms, buey, cabrón, Mexican Spanish
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Social background
- 3.Methods
- 4.Buey
- 4.1Towards a vocative marker
- 4.2Buey. From vocative to discourse marker
- 5.Cabrón
- 5.1Description of Cabrón
- 5.2From referential to vocative
- 6.Conclusions. Parallel paths
References
References (24)
Bernal, M. 2008. “¿Insultan
los insultos? Descortesía auténtica vs. descortesía no auténtica en español
coloquial.” Pragmatics 18 (4): 775–802.
Degand, L. and B. Fagard. 2011. “Alors
between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position.” Functions of
Language XVIII: 29–56.
García Pimentel, Luis. 1899. Vocabulario
de mexicanismos, comprobado con ejemplos y comparado con los de otros países hispano-americanos. Propónense además
algunas adiciones y enmiendas á la última edición (12a.) del Diccionario de la academia. De García
Icazbalceta. México, Tip. y lit. La Europa, de J. Aguilar Vera y ca.
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. 1991. “From
cognition to grammar: Evidence from African
languages.” In Approaches to grammaticalization. Types of
grammatical
markers 19, 2; 149–187. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Kleinknecht, F. 2013. “Mexican
güey -from vocative to discourse marker: a case of
grammaticalization?” In Vocative! Addressing between System
and Performance, edited by Barbara Sonnenhauser and Patrizia Noel Aziz Hanna, 141–174, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Llopis, A. and M. Montañez. 2020. “Los
marcadores apelativos en el español peninsular. In Pragmática
del español hablado: hacia nuevos horizontes, ed. by Antonio Hidalgo and Adrián Cabedo, 319–336. València: Universitat de València.
Llopis A., y Pons S. 2020. “La
gramaticalización de ‘macho’ y ‘tío/a’ como ciclo semántico-pragmático.” Círculo de
Linguística Aplicada a la
Comunicación, 82, 151–164.
2006. “Subjectification,
Grammaticalization, and Conceptual Archetypes.” Subjectification: Various Paths to
Subjectivity” edited by In: A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis, & B. Cornillie, 17–40. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Maldonado, R. 2010. “Claro:
de objeto perceptible a refuerzo pragmático” In Adjetivos en
discurso. Sobre emociones, posibilidades, certezas y evidencias. Edited
by Rodríguez Espineria, M.J. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. 61–107.
2021. Corpus
AMERESCO Ciudad de México. Universidad de Valencia (Albelda y Estellés Coords). [URL]
Martín Butragueño, P., & Lastra, Y. 2011. Corpus
sociolingüístico de la ciudad de México(
CSCM). México: El Colegio de México.
Palacios, N. 2002a. La
interdicción lingüística en el habla de los adolescentes mexicanos. Tesis de licenciatura, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla.
2002b. “Algunos
marcadores discursivos característicos del habla de los adolescentes
mexicanos.” Iztapalapa. Revista de ciencias sociales y
humanidades 18 (53): 225–247.
Pons, S. y A. Llopis. 2020. “Some
reflections on semantic–pragmatic cycles.” Journal of Historical
Pragmatics, 21(2): 315–346.
Pons, S. 2018. “Paths
of grammaticalization: beyond the LP/RP debate.” Beyond Grammaticalization and
Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change, edited
by Salvador Pons and Oscar Loureda, 334–383. Amsterdam: Brill.
Traugott, E. C. 1995. “Subjectification
in grammaticalization.” In Subjectivity and subjectivisation:
Linguistic perspectives, edited by Stein, D., & Wright, S. 1, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2012. “Intersubjectifisation
and clause periphery.” In English Text
Construction, 5(1): 7–28.
Traugott, E. C. and R. Dasher 2002 Regularity
in Semantic Change (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics
97). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
