Aceptación del voseo verbal y pronominal entre chilenos y aprendientes de Español como Lengua Extranjera

Philologia Hispalensis 37 / 1 (2023) 1-20 ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.XXXXXX ACCEPTANCE OF VERBAL AND PRONOMINAL VOSEO AMONG CHILEANS AND LEARNERS OF SPANISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE ACEPTACIÓN DEL VOSEO VERBAL Y PRONOMINAL ENTRE CHILENOS Y APRENDIENTES DE ESPAÑOL COMO LENGUA EXTRANJERA Gloria Toledo Vega Universidad Católica de Chile gtoledo@ uc .cl ORCID: 0000-0003-1031-2844 Katterine Silva Espíndola Duoc UC kat.silva@ profesor .duoc .cl ORCID: 0000-0001-6712-5682 Recibido: 08-02-2022 Aceptado: 06-07-2022 Abstract This study highlights the importance of understanding the forms of voseo in Chile in learners of Spanish as a foreign language (SFL) through reflection on the pragmatic use of the language. This understanding is not easy because of the evolutional nature of voseo, and the diversity of functions of this phenomenon. The study aims to compare the pragmatic judgments on the Chilean voseo between natives and learners of SFL, which was carried out based on the didactic potential that implies understanding the voseo uses. A questionnaire allowed us to observe choices related to the acceptance of the voseo in different situations, considering pragmatic variables among Chileans and SFL learners. After comparing the responses of both groups of participants, a disparity was observed in the acceptance levels of native and non-native speakers, though also a tendency to be cautious with voseo among learners who had spent more time in Chile. At the same time, there was a correlation in judgments regarding voseo as a phenomenon that can show both closeness (verbal) and contempt (pronominal). Keywords: Pragmatic judgements, Pragmatic understanding, Spanish as foreign language teaching, Chilean voseo. ISSN 1132-0265 DOI Philologia Hispalensis Volumen / Número (Año) Páginas ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.v37.i01.08 Philologia Hispalensis 37/1 (2023) 161-190 Gloria Toledo Vega / Katterine Silva Espíndola 162 Resumen Este estudio destaca la importancia de comprender las formas de voseo en Chile en aprendices de español como lengua extranjera (ELE) a través de la reflexión sobre el uso pragmático de la lengua. Esta comprensión no es fácil debido a la naturaleza evolutiva del voseo y a la diversidad de funciones de este fenómeno. El estudio tiene como objetivo comparar los juicios pragmáticos sobre el voseo chileno entre nativos y aprendices de ELE, el cual se realizó con base en el potencial didáctico que implica comprender los usos del voseo. Un cuestionario permitió observar elecciones relacionadas con la aceptación del voseo en diferentes situaciones, considerando variables pragmáticas entre chilenos y aprendices de ELE. Luego de comparar las respuestas de ambos grupos de participantes, se observó una disparidad en los niveles de aceptación de hablantes nativos y no nativos, aunque también una tendencia a ser más cautos con la aceptación del voseo entre los aprendices que habían pasado más tiempo en Chile. Al mismo tiempo, hubo una correlación en los juicios sobre el voseo como un fenómeno que puede mostrar tanto cercanía (verbal) como desprecio (pronominal). Palabras clave: Juicios pragmáticos, Comprensión pragmática, Enseñanza de español como lengua extranjera, voseo chileno. 1. Introduction The voseo phenomenon is a notable characteristic of many regional and social varieties of Latin American Spanish that is defined by the use of pronominal and/ or verbal forms derived initially from the second-person plural (Torrejón, 1986; Fontanella, 1977). Unlike verbal variations of voseo: tenés (Argentina), teníh (Chile), the pronominal forms are uniform in the use of vos according to the subject, although in Chile the -s is aspirated and sounds more like voh. The Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española (2009) makes two distinctions at the level of analysis of the voseo: (a) based on its grammatical properties, or (b) based on its prestige, the level of language that corresponds to it and the areas in which it is found (2009: 16.17). These distinctions complicate the selection of voseantes forms for Spanish learners for both understanding and use. Based on the distinct uses observed in regions which employ voseo, the phenomenon can be classified into the categories of mixed voseo, when the pronoun vos corresponds to the second-person singular (vos tienes miedo); mixed verbal voseo, when the pronoun tú used with verbal vos forms (tu teníh miedo); what Torrejón (1991) terms absolute voseo (pronominal and verbal voseo) and Morales (1998) calls full voseo (voh teníh miedo). Fontanella (1999) establishes four pronominal systems in which the variables of confidence and formality intervene for singular and plural forms, as shown in Table 1. The Chilean system corresponds to IIIa, according to Fontanella (1999, 22.2.3). ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.XXXXXX Philologia Hispalensis 37 / 1 (2023) 1-20 ISSN 1132-0265 DOI Philologia Hispalensis Volumen / Número (Año) Páginas ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.v37.i01.08 Philologia Hispalensis 37/1 (2023) 161-190 Voseo en aprendientes de Español Lengua Extranjera 163 ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.XXXXXX Philologia Hispalensis 37 / 1 (2023) 1-20 Table 1 Treatment pronouns according to Fontanella (1999) Sistem Variables Singular Plural Places of use IConfidence Formality Tú Usted Vosotros Ustedes Most of Spain II Confidence Formality Tú Usted Ustedes Ustedes Areas of America and the Iberian Peninsula (Canary Islands, western Andalusia, parts of Córdoba, Jaén and Granada. IIIa IIIb Confidence Formality Intimacy Confidence Formality Vos – usted Usted Vos Tú usted Ustedes Ustedes Ustedes Ustedes Ustedes The most widespread in the American regions where voseo and tuteo coexist, including Chile. Uriguay IV Confidence Formality Vos ustedes Ustedes Ustedes Argentina, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Paraguay Martín (2005), in identifying the second-person pronominal systems utilized throughout the Hispanic world, places Chilean voseo within a subsystem that includes Chile, much of Bolivia, southern Peru, parts of Ecuador, much of Colombia, western Venezuela, neighboring areas of Panama and Costa Rica, and the Mexican state of Chiapas. This subsystem alternates, without an established functional delineation, the forms of vos of tú, where the former is more likely to be encountered at a middle sociocultural level, in informal situations; the latter is more likely to be used by more educated speakers, and with greater caution; and the usted form is employed in more formal situations, across all sociocultural levels. Regarding Chile specifically, Martín remarks that due to the lack of autonomy of the voseo phenomenon, various pronominal and verbal combinations of tuteo and voseo are generated. In terms of verbal usage, in present-tense -ar forms of voseo, the /s/ phoneme is elided, as in andai rather than andás, while in -er and -ir forms, the /s/ is aspirated, as in comíh or subíh in place of comés or subís. The scenario of voseo in Chile is quite complex in terms of combinatorial structures, functional paradigms, and sociocultural distribution. Morales (1998) distinguishes between purely pronominal voseo, purely verbal voseo, and full voseo, and notes that in Chile all three manifestations can be observed. The verbal paradigm of voseo in Chile, according to Navarro Gala (2000), is found in the present indicative, the preterit, in future tenses, and in the imperative. Angulo Rincón (2010), meanwhile, classifies the Chilean forms of voseo in a more comprehensive manner, as shown in Table 2. ISSN 1132-0265 DOI Philologia Hispalensis Volumen / Número (Año) Páginas ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.v37.i01.08 Philologia Hispalensis 37/1 (2023) 161-190 Gloria Toledo Vega / Katterine Silva Espíndola 164 Table 2 Verbal voseo in Chile (adapted from Angulo Rincón, 2010) Present indicative Voseo/ regular form Past imperfective Voseo/ regular form Preterit Voseo/ regular form Future indicative Voseo/ regular form cantai(s)/ cantas corrí(s)/ corres viví(s)/ vives cantabai(s)/cantabas comíai(s)/ comías vivíai(s)/ vivías Cantastes/ cantaste Comistes/ comiste Vivistes/ viviste cantarí(s)/ cantarás comerí(s)/ comerás vivirí(s)/ vivirás Present subjunctive Voseo/ regular form Imperfect subjunctive Voseo/ regular form Conditional Voseo/ regular form cantí(s)/ cantes comai(s)/ comas vivai(s)/ vivas cantarai(s)/ cantaras comierai(s)/ comieras vivierai(s)/ vivieras cantaríai(s)/ cantarías comeríai(s)/ comerías viviríai(s)/ vivirías Despite the completeness of Angulo Rincón’s observations, it could be argued that the only forms regularly employed are the present indicative and present subjunctive, the past imperfective and the imperfect subjunctive (to a lesser degree), and the conditional. For voseo in the future tense, the periphrastic form is preferred, as in vai a cantar, vai a comer, or vai a dormir, and in terms of the preterit, the voseo form presented by Angulo Rincón does not have a clear pragmatic function and is thus debatable as a distinct usage of this form. In this sense, the addition of an -s at the end of the verbal form in question is perceived as a grammatical error rather than an intentional feature of voseo. Added to the grammatical and sociolinguistic variables of the voseo, is the fact that it is a phenomenon in constant evolution (RAE: 16.17r). In this scenario, this paper intends to highlight the importance of understanding the forms of voseo in Chile in learners of Spanish as a foreign language (SFL), through reflection on the pragmatic use of the language. For this, the objective of this work aims to compare the acceptance of verbal and pronominal voseo between Chilean speakers and learners of Spanish in Chile. The comparison of the pragmatic judgments on the Chilean voseo between natives and learners of ELE, is carried out based on the didactic potential that implies understanding the voseo, widely used in Chile and with diverse functions. In this sense, the relevance of the comparison between HN and HNN has a diagnostic value related to knowing what gaps Spanish learners may have regarding the voseante uses of the target community. In other words, knowing what to teach learners in an immersive context, in highly variable sociocultural contexts as occurs with the uses of voseo. ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.XXXXXX Philologia Hispalensis 37 / 1 (2023) 1-20 ISSN 1132-0265 DOI Philologia Hispalensis Volumen / Número (Año) Páginas ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.v37.i01.08 Philologia Hispalensis 37/1 (2023) 161-190 Voseo en aprendientes de Español Lengua Extranjera 165 ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.XXXXXX Philologia Hispalensis 37 / 1 (2023) 1-20 2. Theoreticalframework 2.1. StudiesoftheuseofvoseoinChilethroughouthistory In terms of the history of voseo in Chile, it is known that Bello (1940) spoke of it in disparaging terms in his campaign to improve linguistic standards in the country. Bello’s campaign had some effect, yet in the mid-twentieth century, mixed verbal voseo increased among educated young people, while its censure decreased on the part of older speakers. The condemnatory approach to the pronominal form, meanwhile, may have contributed to both the widespread use of mixed verbal voseo observed today and the attribution of negative characteristics to the pronominal usage. According to Branza (2012), who compares various studies from 1972 to 2005, an 8.4% increase in tuteo can be ascertained in Chile during this period; a 30.1% increase in voseo; and a 37.7% decrease in the use of the usted form. The change in attitude toward voseo can also be observed in the advancement of relevant research. Rona (1967), for example, maintains that during the sixties voseo was considered vulgar and rustic. In a study from 2004, D’Ambrosio comments that in Chile voseo represents a complex arena of language use with significant geographical and social variation. This work also claims that only the pronominal voseo is considered vulgar. According to D’Ambrosio, verbal voseo is used more frequently than tuteo among young people of both sexes and, more generally, in moments of anger, provided that the speakers are not spouses. In situations of happiness, greater variation is not observed among women or men, but voseo predominates; in terms of the expression of happiness, voseo is used among relatives (though less between partners). In neutral situations, voseo predominates among young men and tuteo among young women. Meanwhile, in a 2006 study, Valencia demonstrates that among older adults, the use of vos is a sign of contempt, aggression, and ignorance, while in younger generations it is a mark of trust and friendship. Stevenson (2007) and Rivadeneira (2009) note that men produce more forms of voseo, but Stevenson also points to a high level of use of verbal voseo among upper-class young women. In a 2011 paper, Della Constanza (2011) distinguishes between the use of authentic voseo (pronominal and verbal), as a derogatory form, and verbal voseo, which is employed in symmetrical relationships by the better-educated. In addition to more habitual usages of voseo, Cautín-Epifani and Valenzuela (2018) report three instances of its use for the present indicative of the verb ser: soi (the “standard” form for voseo), eríh, and soh. The use of eríh had been observed previously by Oyanedel and Samaniego (1998), González (2002), Angulo Rincón (2010), and Rivadeneira (2016). Their observations point to its use by young people in middle-upper to upper socioeconomic strata. The form soh, meanwhile, observed by Cautín-Epifani and Valenzuela, presents diatopic characteristics typical of the youth language of the southern regions of Chile, accompanied by voh, indicative of friendship. ISSN 1132-0265 DOI Philologia Hispalensis Volumen / Número (Año) Páginas ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.v37.i01.08 Philologia Hispalensis 37/1 (2023) 161-190 Gloria Toledo Vega / Katterine Silva Espíndola 166 In terms of the expansion that this phenomenon has undergone, those who have studied voseo in Chile claim that its use has intensified over time (Cautín- Epifani, 2011; Helincks, 2010, Rivadeneira, 2009; Stevenson, 2007; Torrejón, 1986). Paradoxically, this expansion has occurred alongside that of certain prejudices that persist regarding voseo. For example, Bishop and Michnowicz (2010) draw attention to the fact that while Chileans stigmatize voseo (including verbal voseo), they likewise use it with great frequency. This corresponds with Hummel et al. (2010), who observes a contradiction between the unacceptability of the non-standard feature and its continued use. According to this author this might be explained by the fact that in Chile there are social norms and community norms whose associated usages differ from one another. Helincks (2012) remarks that this negative perception of voseo is reflected in the fact that it is not used with children, although children use it amongst themselves frequently as well as with some adults. Considering the background established thus far—the coexistence of various forms of voseo for the same verb, the variety of usages and functions of voseo, the distinct conjugations that accompany it depending on different tenses and modes, and the evolutionary character of this phenomenon-- it follows that this linguistic feature would be problematic for non-native Spanish speakers in Chile. Nevertheless, the voseo has pragmatic functions widely used in Chile, so its understanding is an integral part of the content that Spanish learners should have. Torrejón (1991) offers a series of schemes which, though running the risk of being reductionist, could serve as tools for explaining the use of tuteo and voseo from a pragmatic perspective. To outline his observations, he distinguishes between social and age-related variables with distinct interlocutors, as illustrated in Table 3. Here, for example, in terms of usage between spouses, the following relationship is shown regarding tuteo (T), verbal voseo (TV), the use of usted (U), and authentic, pronominal, or absolute voseo (VV). Table 3 Diagram of pronominal usage based on communicative situation and interlocutors Better educated level Less educated level Man Woman T ← → T TV ← →TV U ← →U Man Woman VV ← → VV We suggest this type of diagram as a sound manner of explaining voseo to non-native speakers of Chilean Spanish; however, it is necessary to establish the perception of voseo among various other interlocutors, considering positions of power, familiarity, and social distance. To complement this type of scheme ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.XXXXXX Philologia Hispalensis 37 / 1 (2023) 1-20 ISSN 1132-0265 DOI Philologia Hispalensis Volumen / Número (Año) Páginas ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.v37.i01.08 Philologia Hispalensis 37/1 (2023) 161-190 Voseo en aprendientes de Español Lengua Extranjera 167 ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.XXXXXX Philologia Hispalensis 37 / 1 (2023) 1-20 considering different pragmatic variables, we introduced such variables in the questionnaire that we designed to explore the pragmatic judgments of native and non-native speakers regarding voseo (Appendix 1). 2.2. Thepragmaticfunctionsofvoseo Cuba and Miranda (2013) indicate that the appropriate use of the linguistic forms in question according to level of formality facilitates communication, while inadequate use can lead the interlocutor to feel uncomfortable. Arroyo (1994), meanwhile, claims that the change from one level of formality to another via change of pronouns with the same person, during the same conversation, can signal a change of context and thus be an index of contextualization. Viewed in this way, it would appear important to teach these forms to Spanish language learners in Chile, but the question remains of how to reckon with the complexities and subtleties involved in the use of voseo and whether learning about it would in fact be worthwhile pedagogically. Regarding the validity of teaching voseo, D’Ambrosio (2004) argues that it should be included within the norms of politeness and that the importance of pragmatics in its use should be highlighted. In effect, by all indications the best way to approach the use of voseo with non-native speakers is from the perspective of its use in interaction. This perspective could demonstrate the importance of the phenomenon in terms of individual identity and at the same time allow for the understanding of a wide variety of interactions that reveal local idiosyncrasies. According to Arroyo (1994), the sociopragmatic interpretation of pronouns allows the understanding of formality and familiarity based on common courtesy to be epistemologically simplified. In a pragmatic vein, Morales (1998) and Páez (1981) associate voseo with situations of solidarity, courtesy, trust, respect, and familiarity. In terms of social standing, we agree in part with Helincks (2012), who reports that the sociocultural level of informants no longer plays a significant role in the use of voseo. From a perspective based on educational level, verbal voseo expresses solidarity and trust within the informal educated norm, while the pronominal form reflects vulgarity and offense, which is in line with the results of Stevenson (2007), Rivadeneira (2009), and Torrejón (2010). From another pragmatic perspective, one associated with strategies for politeness, Arroyo (1994) proposes the use of usted as a mechanism associated with the tact maxim and negative politeness, while tú is used for seeking agreement or sympathy, linked with positive politeness. Given that these uses differ between cultures and are unstable within them, though, disagreement could arise between interlocutors if they have internalized the concepts differently. Arroyo does not address the use of voseo, but its use in terms of positive politeness is far more complex than that of tuteo, at least in the case of Chile, as elaborated above. ISSN 1132-0265 DOI Philologia Hispalensis Volumen / Número (Año) Páginas ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.v37.i01.08 Philologia Hispalensis 37/1 (2023) 161-190 Gloria Toledo Vega / Katterine Silva Espíndola 168 2.3. StudiesonvoseoandSFL In the sphere of teaching and learning Spanish as a second of foreign language (SFL), there are few Spanish textbooks that address the topic of voseo, and for the most part, those that do only consider the Río de la Plata regional variety (as used in Buenos Aires). On one hand, it is worth noting that the vast majority of publications in this area come from the United States or Spain and, on the other hand, addressing each use of voseo in each Spanish-speaking community would be a practically intractable task for an SFL textbook. In this sense, Martín (2005) states that U.S. textbooks disregard voseo due to difficulties in teaching it, among other reasons including the following: that voseo is not considered a standard form in the majority of Hispano- American countries; that those who use voseo use tú with foreigners; that voseo is used mainly by the lower classes; or that Spanish immigrants in the United States do not use voseo for the most part, reflecting a tendency to view the Spanish community as the paradigm of the linguistic standard of Spanish. In this panorama, it seems pedagogically profitable that Applied Linguistics related to foreign languages, focuses on knowing the uses of this phenomenon for its eventual explanation to foreign language learners. In general, SFL textbooks address the phenomenon in question with a brief mention if at all, without describing its geographical distribution or the verbal paradigms of voseo (Martín, 2005; Álvarez y de Compostela, 2014). The Curricular Plan of the Cervantes Institute (PCIC, 2006) defines verbal voseo at the A1 level and details the regions and countries in which it is present (García, 2010). However, this leads once again to the question of whether it is productive to teach these forms, and if they are taught, whether the teacher should aim for their comprehension or use. In this regard, Moreno (2000) comments that the teaching of voseo “can be done with students who are going to carry out their communicative activities in zones where voseo is well esteemed” (2000, 92), also appreciating that in advanced classes, all students should understand the existence of this phenomenon. Moreno’s commentary captures the fact that voseo varies among speech communities, and as echoed by Andión Herrero (2007), this complicates its conceptualization for a linguistic model in SFL. Taking this into consideration, Andión Herrero proposes teaching aspects that are sufficiently perfectible for the learner, worthwhile to acquire actively or passively, and sufficiently wide-ranging in their validity and effective use. This would point toward learners at least having a sociolinguistic awareness of voseo, even if they do not use it themselves (Shenk, 2014). In light of the pragmatic significance of its use and varieties in Chile, it is important for Spanish language learners to be capable of recognizing the contextual uses of voseo. This will contribute to pragmatic competence, which does not only consist of execution, but also of interpretation of language functions and speech acts (Celce-Murcia et al., 1995), enabling learners to avoid misunderstandings within the target community of native speakers of a certain variety of Spanish. The ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.XXXXXX Philologia Hispalensis 37 / 1 (2023) 1-20 ISSN 1132-0265 DOI Philologia Hispalensis Volumen / Número (Año) Páginas ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.v37.i01.08 Philologia Hispalensis 37/1 (2023) 161-190 Voseo en aprendientes de Español Lengua Extranjera 169 ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.XXXXXX Philologia Hispalensis 37 / 1 (2023) 1-20 pragmatic component of voseo is related to the lexical dimension, which, according to Agustín (2006), may not be possible to develop based on the norms that govern classroom interaction or the few opportunities that learners typically have, to practice the target language outside of school. The meager existing coverage of voseo is linked to the primacy of books as sources of material and classwork and the lack of facilitation of authentic opportunities to recognize this phenomenon in classes (Mata, 2006). On the other hand, Mata also suggests that there could be a hidden resistance on the part of learners to develop pragmatic competence based on awareness of appropriateness, as they often focus only on linguistic correctness. A final factor is that it can be quite challenging to learn the morphology of voseo to the point at which students would be capable of communicating with this linguistic feature with pragmatic correctness, whether in terms of contempt, familiarity, or otherwise (Bachelor, 2016). 3. Methodologicalframework 3.1. Participants Our study sample was comprised of two groups: 73 native speakers of Chilean Spanish (NS) and 39 non-native speakers (NNS), all of whom were selected through purposive sampling. The NS group was divided into three subgroups based on gender: women and men (self-identified); by age (from 21 to 29, from 30 to 39, from 40 to 49, and over 50); and educational level (completed secondary education or some level of tertiary education). The NNS group belongs to one age group (21 to 29), one educational level (completing tertiary education), and was subdivided in subgroups according to length of time in Chile, divided into four periods: less than three months (13 participants); from three to six months (16 participants); from six months to one year (6 participants); and more than one year (2 participants). The NS Chileans were residents of Santiago, the country’s capital city, and the NSS were exchange students at Pontifical Catholic University in Chile, ranging from B2 to C1 levels in SFL, with distinct mother tongues: mainly English, as well as Japanese, Chinese, Portuguese, and German. We selected participants within this range of SFL proficiency to work with learners who possess knowledge and capability in Spanish that would allow them to distinguish various forms of voseo in Chilean speech. We did not consider the mother tongue as a variable, given that our objective was instead the length of stay in Chile of the NNS. Considering the NNS mother tongue would have required a separate study, with a balanced group formation for that purpose. The variables that we consider in the NS group: gender, age, and level of education, respond to the variables involved in the questionnaire of pragmatic judgments that we applied to our informants to account for different situations of power, social distance, and familiarity. The variable regarding the length of time ISSN 1132-0265 DOI Philologia Hispalensis Volumen / Número (Año) Páginas ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.v37.i01.08 Philologia Hispalensis 37/1 (2023) 161-190 Gloria Toledo Vega / Katterine Silva Espíndola 176 4.2. AcceptanceofverbalandpronominalvoseoamongNNS 4.2.1. Verbal/pronominal voseo in NNS considering gender. Table 7 exhibits the percentages of acceptance of verbal and pronominal voseo based on gender for the NNS participants. These Spanish language learners included 24 women and 15 men ranging in proficiency level from B2 to C1 (according to MCER , see Consejo de Europa, 2002). The table shows that the most remarkable acceptance of verbal voseo among NNS men corresponded to using it to ask for something from a partner. In the case of women, it was most frequently accepted for telling something to a younger, unknown person. In neither group was any preference recorded that coincided with Chilean speakers. Table 7 Acceptance of verbal/pronominal voseo based on gender among NNS ACCEPTANCE OF VERBAL VOSEO ACCEPTANCE OF PRONOMINAL VOSEO Voseo toward Men Women Men Women Speech act Woman 33.5 16.6 13.3 12.5 Reprimanding Man 6.7 8.3 26.7 12.5 Reprimanding Unknown/ same age 33.3 29.2 0 8.3 Telling something Familiar/ same age 33.3 4.2 20 16.7 Asking for something Unknown/ younger 33.3 41.7 20 4.2 Telling something Familiar/ younger 46.7 29.2 20 33.3 Asking for something Unknown/ older 13.3 8.3 26.7 37.5 Telling something Familiar/ older 20 29.2 20 29.2 Asking for something Greater social distance 33.3 33.2 20 12.5 Asking for something Less social distance: friend 48.3 28.9 9.8 15.6 Reprimanding, thanking, asking for something Less social distance: partner 60 31.2 6.7 22.9 Asking for something Less social distance: one’s child 26.7 20.8 0 4.2 Reprimanding Regarding the pronominal voseo, NNS were distributed in their greatest level of acceptance between reprimanding a man and telling something to an unknown, older person (one of the least accepted alternatives among Chileans). NNS ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.XXXXXX Philologia Hispalensis 37 / 1 (2023) 1-20 ISSN 1132-0265 DOI Philologia Hispalensis Volumen / Número (Año) Páginas ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.v37.i01.08 Philologia Hispalensis 37/1 (2023) 161-190 Voseo en aprendientes de Español Lengua Extranjera 177 ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.XXXXXX Philologia Hispalensis 37 / 1 (2023) 1-20 women, meanwhile, accepted voseo most often when asking for something from an unknown, older person (again, far from the most acceptable option recorded among native speakers). The only choice that coincided between NS and NNS participants was among men, in the act of reprimanding. The total average acceptance of verbal voseo was 32.3% among NNS men, higher than the average among Chilean men, and 23.4% among NNS women, lower than the average among Chilean women. In the case of pronominal voseo, the total average acceptance was 15.2% among NNS men and 17.4% among NNS women, which are much higher than the acceptance rates recorded for the Chilean (NS) participants in this study. 4.2.2. Verbal/pronominal voseo in NNS considering length of time in Chile. According to M. Agustín (2006), the best method of developing the comprehension of voseo is through practice in the target language outside the context of language classes. Table 8 demonstrates, in line with this claim, that the group of NNS who had spent the most time in Chile were far more cautious in their judgements regarding voseo, especially the pronominal form. Table 8 Acceptance of verbal/pronominal voseo based on length of time in Chile ACCEPTANCE OF VERBAL VOSEO ACCEPTANCE OF PRONOMINAL VOSEO Voseo toward <3m 3-6m 6m-1y >1y <3m 3-6m 6m-1y >1y Speech act Woman 15,4 25 33,3 0 7,7 12,5 16,7 0 Reprimanding Man 7,7 6,3 16,7 0 7,7 12,5 50 0 Reprimanding Unknown/ same age 23,1 31,3 66,7 0 0 6,3 16,7 0 Telling something Familiar/ same age 0 18,8 50 0 7,7 31,3 16,7 0 Asking for something Unknown/ younger 46,2 37,5 33,3 0 15,4 6,3 16,7 0 Telling something Familiar/ younger 30,8 31,3 66,7 0 30,8 37,5 16,7 50 Asking for something Unknown/ older 23,1 6,3 0 0 38,5 31,3 33,3 0 Telling something Familiar/ older 30,8 25 0 50 30,8 31,3 16,7 0 Asking for something ISSN 1132-0265 DOI Philologia Hispalensis Volumen / Número (Año) Páginas ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.v37.i01.08 Philologia Hispalensis 37/1 (2023) 161-190 Gloria Toledo Vega / Katterine Silva Espíndola 178 ACCEPTANCE OF VERBAL VOSEO ACCEPTANCE OF PRONOMINAL VOSEO Greater social distance 38,5 31,3 50 50 7,7 25 0 0 Asking for something Less social distance: friend 38,4 35,9 33,3 25,5 9,6 10,9 12,5 0 Reprimanding, thanking, asking for something Less social distance: partner 19,2 40,6 25 50 19,2 25 0 0 Asking for something Less social distance: one’s child 15,4 31,3 33,3 50 0 6,3 0 0 Reprimanding The total average acceptance of verbal voseo among the NNS groups according to the length of time in Chile was 24% for the first group (least time), 26.7% for the second group, 34% for the third group, and 18.7% for the fourth group (most time). Meanwhile, the average acceptance of pronominal voseo was 14.5% in the first group (least time), 19.6% in the second group, 6.3% in the third group, and 4.1% in the fourth group (most time). It might have been thought that a more extended stay in Chile would have resulted in a greater general acceptance of the voseo; however, the results show an acceptance consistent with that of Chileans. We could venture that at the time of this questionnaire, the first group still did not understand and perhaps did not even discern the forms of voseo used in Chile. The second group might have distinguished the forms but not their appropriate use. Meanwhile, the two groups with the most time in the country were the most cautious in accepting pronominal voseo, suggesting a heightened understanding. Although expected, these results are also relevant since they show that the teaching of voseante forms should be progressive; that is to say, it is not possible to teach all the uses in a few classes, no matter how high the language is the level of the learners. Ten of the SFL learners explicitly mentioned their ignorance and discomfort regarding voseo forms in filling out the questionnaire. As Mata (2006) indicated, non-native speakers will tend to prefer more conventionally correct forms and avoid other forms that are more ambiguous in their usage. 4.3. JudgmentsregardingvoseoamongNSandNSS As mentioned previously, the questionnaire used with study participants also included an open portion, together with each alternative, which provided a margin in which they could assign an adjective that would describe the use of voseo or tuteo in the specific situation proposed. The most frequent type of answers provided by ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.XXXXXX Philologia Hispalensis 37 / 1 (2023) 1-20 ISSN 1132-0265 DOI Philologia Hispalensis Volumen / Número (Año) Páginas ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.v37.i01.08 Philologia Hispalensis 37/1 (2023) 161-190 Voseo en aprendientes de Español Lengua Extranjera 179 ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.XXXXXX Philologia Hispalensis 37 / 1 (2023) 1-20 native speakers and non-native speakers regarding voseo (verbal and pronominal) are shown in Table 9. We grouped the following adjectives in semantic categories to define the most frequent judgements assigned by NS and NNS. Hence, the adjectives cercanía and familiaridad were comprised in closeness; desprecio, menosprecio, desaire in contempt; rabia y enojo in anger; and amistad was comprised in friendship. Table 9 Judgments regarding voseo among NS AND NNS Percentage of judgements attributed to voseo Question Type of voseo Most frequent judgment assigned by NNS and NS Percentage NNS Percentage NS 1 Verbal Closeness 27,60% 61,70% Pronominal Contempt 20,70% 27,70% 2 Verbal Closeness 34,50% 46,80% Pronominal Contempt 17,20% 27,70% 3 Verbal Closeness 27,60% 55,30% Pronominal Contempt 27,60% 36,20% 4 Verbal Closeness 31% 61,70% Pronominal No consensus 24,10% 0 5 Verbal Closeness 31% 55,30% Pronominal No consensus 13,80% 0 6 Verbal Closeness 17,20% 25,50% Pronominal Anger 10,30% 36,20% 7 Verbal Anger 0 23,40% Pronominal Contempt 10,30% 27,70% 8 Verbal Closeness 24,10% 42,60% Pronominal Contempt 10,3 40,40% 9 Verbal Closeness 17,20% 38,30% Pronominal Contempt 13,80% 31,90% 10 Verbal Closeness 17,20% 27,70% Pronominal Contempt 6,90% 29,8 11 Verbal Closeness 24,10% 36,20% Pronominal Contempt 0 23,40% 12 Verbal Anger 10,30% 27,70% ISSN 1132-0265 DOI Philologia Hispalensis Volumen / Número (Año) Páginas ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.v37.i01.08 Philologia Hispalensis 37/1 (2023) 161-190 Gloria Toledo Vega / Katterine Silva Espíndola 180 Percentage of judgements attributed to voseo Question Type of voseo Most frequent judgment assigned by NNS and NS Percentage NNS Percentage NS Pronominal Anger 0 29,8 13 Verbal Closeness 27,60% 51,10% Pronominal Contempt 10,30% 19,10% 14 Verbal Closeness 13,80% 34,00% Pronominal Contempt 0 25,50% 15 Verbal Friendship 17,20% 25,50% Pronominal Friendship 10,30% 21,3 16 Verbal Anger 13,80% 38,30% Pronominal Anger 10,30% 44,70% 17 Verbal Anger 10,30% 44,70% Pronominal Contempt 6,93% 42,60% 18 Verbal Closeness 20,70% 34,00% Pronominal Closeness 10,30% 23,40% As exhibited in this table, the most significant agreement cases between Chilean participants (over 50%) relate to the meanings attributed to verbal voseo. This level of agreement applied to the sense of closeness in nearly all cases, specifically in questions 1, 3, 4, 5, and 13, which correspond to the following types of situations: (1) asking for something from a familiar person of similar age; (3) asking for something from a familiar person who is younger than you; (4) asking for something from your partner; (5) apologizing to your partner; and (13) asking something to your partner. As for the pronominal voseo, although there was no full agreement among the Chilean participants, the tendency was to associate it with contempt, among other negative connotations. Meanwhile, the NNS participants coincided with the NS in the situations mentioned above in terms of the type of adjective provided most frequently, attributing the same meaning to verbal voseo in the situations discussed above: those seen as related to closeness. This characteristic is related to the trust and solidarity that Páez (1981) and Morales (1998) refer to. No consensus was observed only in the types of adjectives related to pronominal voseo in questions 4 and 5. 5. Conclusions The present study considered the historical evolution of the voseo in Chile, to account for the changing nature of this phenomenon; the pragmatic functions of ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.XXXXXX Philologia Hispalensis 37 / 1 (2023) 1-20 ISSN 1132-0265 DOI Philologia Hispalensis Volumen / Número (Año) Páginas ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.v37.i01.08 Philologia Hispalensis 37/1 (2023) 161-190 Voseo en aprendientes de Español Lengua Extranjera 181 ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.XXXXXX Philologia Hispalensis 37 / 1 (2023) 1-20 the voseo, to understand its functional value; and the teaching of voseo in SFL, to calibrate what to teach about this phenomenon, in what context and based on what understanding gaps of the learners. Aiming at the latter, this work intended to highlight the importance of the pragmatic knowledge of the voseante forms in Chile for teaching-learning of SFL. This study showed the difficulty in comprehension that this phenomenon presents to non-native speakers of Chilean Spanish, even those with high proficiency levels in SFL. The preceding demonstrates the need to teach these forms, widely used in Chile, from a pragmatic point of view that aims to improve learners´ understanding. General results indicate that Chileans, both men and women, show more acceptance of voseo for reprimanding. Men and women also coincide in the less acceptance of voseo to tell something to an older stranger. There is more acceptance of voseo among Chilean women, and both men and Chilean women show less acceptance for pronominal voseo than verbal. Based on education, there is more acceptance of verbal voseo among the group without tertiary education. The less significant acceptance of voseo in every group is for reprimanding a child, especially among the group with tertiary education. Based on age, there is more acceptance between the younger group and less among the older. The more significant acceptance is when asking for something from a relative of the same age (among the younger group) and reprimanding women among the other two older groups. In general, more acceptance of pronominal voseo is related to reprimanding, thanking, or asking for something in situations of solidarity. The less acceptance among all groups is related to asking for or telling older people something. Among NNS, distinctions based on gender show there is no coincidence with Chilean informants. Men consider verbal voseo more acceptable when asking for something from a partner, and women when telling something to a young but unknown person. On the other hand, contrary to Chilean women, women NNS accept less verbal voseo. Related to pronominal voseo, men consider it more acceptable to reprimand a man and telling something to an older unknown. On the other hand, women consider that pronominal voseo is acceptable to ask something to an older unknown. NNS men generally show more acceptance than Chilean men to pronominal voseo. The only coincidence with NS is the acceptance of voseo for reprimand. Moreover, results suggest that a greater length of time in Chile for SFL learners does not guarantee the use of voseo forms because acceptance was generally associated with more precaution among those learners who had been in the country longer. In other words, these learners’ improved understanding of voseo compared to those who had spent less time in Chile was manifested through an attitude of lower acceptance of the phenomenon in distinct situations and contexts, corresponding more closely to native speaker views. A study like this reinforces the importance of context for determining the uses of voseo, as Arroyo (1994) indicated. ISSN 1132-0265 DOI Philologia Hispalensis Volumen / Número (Año) Páginas ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.v37.i01.08 Philologia Hispalensis 37/1 (2023) 161-190 Gloria Toledo Vega / Katterine Silva Espíndola 182 There seems to have been agreement among Chilean native speakers and nonnative speakers in associating verbal voseo with greater closeness and pronominal voseo with contempt. Although these results are expected, they are also relevant since they show that the teaching and learning of voseante forms should be progressive and very contextualized. In this sense, a study like this serves to understand the gaps in NNS´ understanding of the voseo phenomenon and identify the most idiosyncratic uses among Chileans so that these uses could be taught in more advanced stages of stay in Chile. Bearing these results in mind and returning to the question of whether it is worthwhile from a pedagogical point of view to teach the form in question to learners of Chilean Spanish, our answer comes in the same vein as Andión Herrero (2007) and Moreno (2000). The optimal route is to teach what is most perceptible about voseo in a given context and not require its various forms but rather its comprehension. This will allow learners to access implicit significations which reveal an essential part of our culture and idiosyncrasies. References Agustín, M. P. (2006). La competencia pragmática y los errores pragmático-léxicos en la clase de ELE. En A. Álvarez, C. de la Hoz, L. Barrientos, I. Iglesias, M. Braña, P. Martínez, V. Coto, M. Prieto, M. Cuevas, y A. Turza (Eds.), La Competencia Pragmática o la Enseñanza del Español como Lengua Extranjera. Actas del XVI Congreso Internacional ASELE (pp. 96-102). Ediciones de la Universidad de Oviedo. https:// cvc .cervantes .es/ ensenanza/ biblioteca _ele/ asele/ pdf/ 16/ 16 _0096 .pdf Álvarez, I. y de Compostela, S. (2014). Formas de tratamiento y enseñanza del español como lengua extranjera. RedELE: Revista Electrónica de Didáctica ELE, (26), 86-102. Andión Herrero, M. A. (2007). Las variedades y su complejidad conceptual en el diseño de un modelo lingüístico para español L2/LE. ELUA. Estudios De Lingüística. Universidad De Alicante, (21), 21-33. https:// doi .org/ 10 .14198/ ELUA2007 .21 .02 Angulo Rincón, L. A. (2010). Voseo, el otro castellano de América. Revista historia de la educación latinoamericana, (14), 267-288. https:// doi .org/ 10 .19053/ 01227238 .1558 Arroyo, J. (1994). Los pronombres de tratamiento y la cortesía. Revista de Filología de la Universidad de la Laguna, (13), 7-36. Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. (2009). Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española. Espasa. Bachelor, J. W. (2016). La Interdependencia pragmático gramatical en el aprendizaje de español como lengua extranjera (ELE). Lenguaje, 44(2), 147-175. https:// doi .org/ 10 .25100/ lenguaje .v44i2 .4619 Bello, A. (1940). Advertencias sobre el uso de la lengua castellana, dirigidas a los padres de familia, profesores de los colegios y maestros de escuela. El español en Chile. Biblioteca de Dialectología Hispanoamericana VI: 52-76 (original publicado en 1856). Bishop, K. y Michnowicz, J. (2010). Forms of address in Chilean Spanish. Hispania, 93(3), 413- 429. http:// www .jstor .org/ stable/ 25758211 ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.XXXXXX Philologia Hispalensis 37 / 1 (2023) 1-20 ISSN 1132-0265 DOI Philologia Hispalensis Volumen / Número (Año) Páginas ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.v37.i01.08 Philologia Hispalensis 37/1 (2023) 161-190 Voseo en aprendientes de Español Lengua Extranjera 183 ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.XXXXXX Philologia Hispalensis 37 / 1 (2023) 1-20 Branza, M. (2012). La variación ‘circular’: La diacronía del voseo chileno y las causas de su actual difusión. Colindancias. Revista de la Red de Hispanistas de Europa Central, (3), 141- 153. https:// www .ceeol .com/ search/ article -detail ?id = 274881 Cautín-Epifani, V. (2011). El voseo chileno en interacciones mediadas por computadora: un estudio exploratorio. Actas del XIX Congreso Internacional de la Sociedad Chilena de Lingüística (SOCHIL) Valparaíso, Chile. Cautín-Epifani, V. y Valenzuela, M. (2018). Variación sociolingüística del voseo verbal chileno en interacciones escritas en la Biografía Facebook. Onomázein, (4), 49-69. h t t p s : // d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 7 7 6 4 / o n o m a z e i n . a d d . 0 7 Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, Z. y Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated framework with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5-35. https:// doi .org/ 10 .5070/ L462005216 Consejo de Europa (2002). Marco común europeo de referencia para las lenguas: aprendizaje, enseñanza, evaluación. Secretaría General Técnica del MECD-Subdirección General de Información y Publicaciones, y Grupo ANAYA. Cuba, L. y Miranda, Y. (2013). De la teoría a la práctica formas de tratamiento desconocimiento o descortesía verbal. Monografías. https:// www .monografias .com/ trabajos106/ teoria -practica -formas -tratamiento -desconocimiento -o - des - cortesia -verbal/ teoria -practica -formas -tratamiento -desconocimiento -o -des -cortesia -verbal .shtml D’Ambrosio, H. (2004). Pragmática sociolingüística de pedagogía de los pronombres de tratamiento en lengua española. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada, (39), 37-52. Della Constanza, M. (2011). El voseo auténtico en el habla culta de Chile: un anacronismo despectivo. En C. Albizu, H. Dohla, L. Filipponio, M. Sguaitmatti, H. Volker, V. Ziswiler, y R. Zollner (Eds.), Anachronismen – Anachronismes – Anacronismi – Anacronismos (pp.55-67). ETS. Fontanella, M. (1977). La constitución del paradigma pronominal de voseo. Thesaurus: Boletín del Instituto Caro y Cuervo, 32(2), 227-241. http:// bibliotecadigital .caroycuervo .gov .co/ 539/ 1/ TH _32 _002 _015 _0 .pdf Fontanella, M. (1999). Pragmática de los pronombres de tratamiento. En I. Bosque y V. Demonte (Dir.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española (Vol. I: 1414-1418; 22.5). Espasa. García, E. (2010). El tratamiento de las variedades de español en los manuales de ELE2/ LE [Memoria de Máster]. UNED. https:// www .educacionyfp .gob .es/ mc/ redele/ biblioteca -virtual/ numerosanteriores/ 2010/ memoriamaster/ 2 -semestre/ enriquegarcia .html González, C. E. (2002). La variación ‘eríh’/‘soi’ en el voseo verbal de Santiago de Chile. Un estudio exploratorio. Onomázein, (7), 213-230. https:// doi .org/ 10 .7764/ onomazein .7 .11 Helincks, K. (2010). La variación estilística y dialectal del voseo chileno [Tesina inédita propuesta para la obtención del diploma de Master Taal- en Letterkunde: Nederlands – Spaans, Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte, Universiteit Gent]. Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte. https://lib.ugent.be/en/catalog/rug01:001457969 Helincks, K. (2012). La variación social y estilística del voseo chileno en diferentes géneros televisivos. Revista internacional de lingüística iberoamericana, 10(19), 185-211. https:// www .jstor .org/ stable/ 41678491 Hummel, M., Kluge, B. y Vázquez, M. E. (2010). Formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en el mundo hispánico. El Colegio de México. (Centro de Estudios Lingüísticos y Literarios) ISSN 1132-0265 DOI Philologia Hispalensis Volumen / Número (Año) Páginas ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.v37.i01.08 Philologia Hispalensis 37/1 (2023) 161-190 Gloria Toledo Vega / Katterine Silva Espíndola 184 Instituto Cervantes (2006). Plan Curricular del Instituto Cervantes. Niveles de referencia para el español. Madrid. Biblioteca Nueva Martín, Y. (2005). Notas de morfología dialectal en los manuales del español como segunda lengua: los pronombres de segunda persona. En A. Castillo, O. Cruz Moya, J. M. García, y J. P. Mora (Eds.), Las gramáticas y los diccionarios en la enseñanza del español como segunda lengua, deseo y realidad: Actas del XV Congreso Internacional de ASELE (pp. 212- 221). Universidad de Sevilla, Secretariado de Publicaciones. https:// dialnet .unirioja .es/ servlet/ articulo ?codigo = 1421169 Mata, J. (2006). Transferibilidad de la competencia pragmática. Implicaciones derivadas de la enseñanza de español como segunda lengua (E/SL) a niños inmigrantes. En A. Álvarez, C. de la Hoz, L. Barrientos, I. Iglesias, M. Braña, P. Martínez, V. Coto, M. Prieto, M. Cuevas, y A. Turza (Eds.), La Competencia Pragmática o la Enseñanza del Español como Lengua Extranjera: Actas del XVI Congreso Internacional ASELE (pp. 298-307). Ediciones de la Universidad de Oviedo. https:// cvc .cervantes .es/ ensenanza/ biblioteca _ele/ asele/ pdf/ 16/ 16 _0298 .pdf Morales, F. (1998). Panorama del voseo chileno y rioplatense. Boletín de Filología (Santiago), 37(2), 835-848. https:// revistas .uchile .cl/ index .php/ BDF/ article/ view/ 21489 Moreno, F. (2000). Qué español enseñar. Arco/Libros. Navarro Gala, R. (2000). Una propuesta teórico-práctica para la enseñanza de las formas de tratamiento de segunda persona en las clases de ELE. En M. A. Martín y C. Díez (Eds.), Qué español enseñar?: norma y variación lingüísticas en la enseñanza del español a extranjeros: Actas del XI Congreso Internacional ASELE (pp. 551-558). ÁSELE / Universidad de Zaragoza. https:// cvc .cervantes .es/ ensenanza/ biblioteca _ele/ asele/ pdf/ 11/ 11 _0551 .pdf Oyanedel, M. y Samaniego, J. (1998). Notas para un nuevo perfil lingüístico del español de Santiago de Chile. Boletín de Filología, 37(2), 899-913. https:// revistas .uchile .cl/ index .php/ BDF/ article/ view/ 21496 Páez, I. (1981). Historia y geografía hispanoamericana del voseo. La casa de Bello. Rivadeneira, M. (2009). El voseo en medios de comunicación de Chile. Descripción y análisis de la variación dialectal y funcional [Tesis para optar al grado de doctor en Filología]. Universitat Pompeu Fabra. https:// www .tdx .cat/ handle/ 10803/ 7510 Rivadeneira, M. (2016). Sociolinguistic variation and change in Chilean voseo. In M. Moya y S. Rivera-Mills (Eds.), Forms of Address in the Spanish of the Americas (pp. 87-118). John Benjamins. https:// doi .org/ 10 .1075/ ihll .10 .05riv Rona, J. (1967). Geografía y morfología del voseo. Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio Grande do Sul. Shenk, E. (2014). Teaching Sociolinguistic Variation in the Intermediate Language Classroom:" Voseo" in Latin America. Hispania, 97(3), 368-381. https:// doi .org/ 10 .1353/ hpn .2014 .0089 Stevenson, J. (2007). The sociolinguistic variables of Chilean voseo [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Washington. Torrejón, A. (1986). Acerca del Voseo Culto de Chile. Hispania, 69(3), 677-683. https:// doi .org/ 10 .2307/ 342781 Torrejón, A. (1991). Fórmulas de tratamiento de segunda persona singular en el español de Chile. Hispania, 74(4), 1068-1076. https:// doi .org/ 10 .2307/ 343770 ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.XXXXXX Philologia Hispalensis 37 / 1 (2023) 1-20 ISSN 1132-0265 DOI Philologia Hispalensis Volumen / Número (Año) Páginas ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.v37.i01.08 Philologia Hispalensis 37/1 (2023) 161-190 Voseo en aprendientes de Español Lengua Extranjera 185 ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.XXXXXX Philologia Hispalensis 37 / 1 (2023) 1-20 Torrejón, A. (2010). Nuevas observaciones sobre el voseo en el español de Chile. In Formas y fórmulas de tratamiento en el mundo hispánico (pp. 755-770). El Colegio de México. Valencia, A. (2006). Formas pronominales de tratamiento en Santiago de Chile. En M. Sedano y A. Shiro (Eds.), Haciendo lingüística: Homenaje a Paola Bentivoglio (pp. 569-581). Universidad Central de Venezuela. Authorscontribution Gloria Toledo Vega contributed to its conception, realization, and development, as well as to obtaining the data, the interpretation of the results, its writing and revision. Katterine Silva Espíndola contributed to its realization and development, as well as to obtaining the data, its writing and revision. ISSN 1132-0265 DOI Philologia Hispalensis Volumen / Número (Año) Páginas ISSN 1132-0265 https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/PH.2023.v37.i01.08 Philologia Hispalensis 37/1 (2023) 161-190