The Castilian language is one of the most spoken languages in the world. It is a Romance language, which evolved from Latin and adopted many of its grammatical structures. One of the most widely discussed complex language structures originating from Latin were address forms. While all forms were based on and drew inspiration from Latin, during the establishment of the Spanish language in the Renaissance period, address forms created controversy and disagreement. The Latin system of address was simplistic, it had only two different forms, tú, which was used for singular and vos, which was used for plural. The Spanish language adopted these forms too, but over time, the Iberians experimented, developing increasingly more complex structures with different address forms. The Golden Age, between 15th and 17th century, saw three different forms of address being used simultaneously to address one person: tú, vos and vuestra merced. The most appropriate form of address chosen depended on the social circumstances of both the addresser and the addressee. The different forms caused debate during this period in history. On many occasions, confusion arose, as even native speakers were unsure about usage etiquette or which was the most accurate form. Given the nature of the subject, there is bound to be a lot of overlap and repetition when discussing the different points. Ambrosia de Salazar’s book name is a collection of fictional dialogue that presents different grammatical concepts. In this instance, he uses the character of Gonzalo who incorrectly addresses addressing a guard to lend emphasis the issue of address forms and the consequences of mistakes. Gonzalo is a French national who has come to Spain to visit a friend but when speaking with the guard, he uses the incorrect form of address and the gentleman becomes angry. This dialogue allows Salazar to convey the hierarchical culture in Spanish society and sociolinguistic complications relating to social class. The correct usage of each address form was unclear, as they often overlapped inducing sociolinguistic confusion.
The dialogue in Salazar’s book is one of the most cited pieces of evidence about the controversy created by address forms and the consequences of incorrect practice. To fully understand the repercussions of the mishandling of address forms, one must return to Gonzalo and the context of this dialogue. Gonzalo is a French citizen, which suggests his first language is not Spanish. He has come to Spain in to visit a friend who lives in Granada, in the South of Spain. To reach his friend’s house, Gonzalo will have had to spend a few days traveling from France to Granada. It would be naïve to believe that during his journey and stay, he had not heard native speakers address each other prior to this situation. Gonzalo uses vos to address a guard which appears to be the bridge between tú and vuestra merced implying that it is neither extremely impolite nor extremely polite. Moreno states vos was the form to use when one was not sure about the status of the addressee and unsure what form of address to use. (Moreno, 2002: 17) Vos is an unbiased and cautious option. However, she contradicts this argument when she states, “in trying to be ‘safe’, via neutrality, the speaker who uses VOS turns out to not be polite enough.” (Moreno, 2002: 17) Despite its impartiality, to some, vos denotes a lack of respect and lack of social class. Moreno’s theory can be applied to Gonzalo as he used the form that he deemed most appropriate in the situation and did not intend to offend the guard. This unintentional attack on his social class is portrayed further when he says, “Y no supe que responder.” (Ambrosio de Salazar, 1622, cited in Anipa 2001: 201) It is clear throughout this conversation Gonzalo was surprised by the guard’s angry reaction when he used the incorrect form of address. The guard is insulted by the incorrect address form. His reaction is surprising to the reader as well as he must have been able to deduce that Gonzalo is not a native Spanish speaker and therefore the address form that he was using was the form he recognized and had heard native speakers commonly use. As many native speakers found address forms difficult to decipher, it is not hard to believe Gonzalo did also.
Many people would have deemed vos as the polite form of address during this period. However, like other address forms, there was a lack of clarity, thus other people may have also deemed vos extremely impolite, like the guard:
De manera que quando se habla o trata de alguno de vos, lo tienen a afrenta muy grande por la causa dicha. (Ambrosio de Salazar, 1622, cited in Anipa 2001)
It could be suggested that had Gonzalo been a native speaker, the gentleman’s reaction would have been worse. However, his reaction to a foreigner implies that the
Guard deems himself as socially above the address form Gonzalo used, highlighting the fundamental ethos with address forms, which was more a question of social class. Many people wanted to belong to a higher social class and considered themselves warranting respect befitting the social class they desired. The reader can apply this to the guard as it is suggested he believes he belongs to the upper class and Gonzalo has not addressed him accordingly. Sebastián de Covarrubias y Horozco states in his book, Tesoro de la lengua castellana (1611) that vos, “no todas veces es bien recibido”. (Covarrubias y Orozco, 1611, cited in PLA CÁRCELES, 1923: 247) Despite being neither of the extremities of politeness, it is clear vos causes a lot of controversy. It is often used when both the addresser and addressee consider each other equals. Conversely the same usage can also represent a lack of unity between the speakers. As Quevedo states in El gran Tacaño, vos can be used for those who are in love and those who are familiar with each other. (Quevedo, 1626, cited in PLA CÁRCELES, 1923: 247) It can be inferred that the guard and Gonzalo did not have a close relationship and he was insulted at Gonzalo’s choice of address. The incorrect usage could insult the addressee as they might deem their status formally above the addresser within society. However, others believe that vos would have been the correct form given the circumstances as Gonzalo is not a native speaker and believed he was speaking appropriately.
Address forms are clearly a complex issue when only socio-economic classes are taken into consideration. The idea of religion, which contributes to your own personal honour, makes the issue more complicated. Given the period of time in history, Spain was still a dominant Catholic country and religion played an influential role in society. The Moors inhabited the Southern part of the Iberian Peninsula and played an important role in the establishment of the Spanish language. Their contribution to the sociolinguistic complexity of address forms is also significant; as a major factor within this hierarchical society was intrinsic to you and your family’s honour. Moreno states that being respectable means the family had to be, “clean, not mixed with Jewish or Arabic Blood.” (Moreno, 2002: 41) These people were social climbers within an overly hierarchical society. People’s religion and background, family and wealth, all contributed to one’s social ranking. In Salazar’s dialogue, the guard asks if Gonzalo is a Muslim, as normally, Muslim’s would use vos to address each other. Catholicism was, and is, the dominant religion in Spain and therefore Catholics are only addressed using vuestra merced as they belonged to the highest social class. However, many people believed religion should not determine your place within society nor given higher social respect. One’s religion contributing to address form displays the sociolinguistic difficulties of this Spanish society. There are many characteristics which were deemed favourable to higher social status during the Renaissance and if someone lacked a trait, they would assume a lower social class; despite or whether, it was a familial quality rather than a fault of their own. (Brown and Gilman, 1960: 260)
The Renaissance period was dependent on hierarchy. Those in lower classes wanted to be in a higher class, they wanted to have more honour and be more respected within society. Those in the upper social class would have addressed each other using vuestra merced. Its respectably came from its origins, which was a title, meaning your grace; prior to becoming an address form. Many writers wrote about vuestra merced in their works during the 16th century. The guard’s reaction to Gonzalo addressing him with vos implies that he believes he belongs to the upper social class, yet Gonzalo incorrectly does not share his opinion. The guard addressed Gonzalo with vuestra merced suggesting Gonzal should have reciprocated and addressed him similarly. He belonged to the upper class and only vos should have been used with complete strangers, and this was their first encounter. (Anipa, 2001: 201) Gonzalo’s confident attitude towards the Spanish language implies that he was certain of his decision yet did not intend to offend the gentleman. His reaction conveys the correlation with address forms and socio-economic classes.
In addition to vuestra merced being used with those of an equally high social standing, one would have expected those with a lower social ranking to address them with vuestra merced. It can be implied that the guard believes he belongs to an upper class than Gonzalo as he is not a Spanish national. In summary, the inference for using vuestra merced is when conversing with the person who has the highest social ranking in any given social circumstance. Grammarian Oudin states vuestra merced is, “trop pour toute sorte de personnes” (Oudin, 1597: 7-21) implying that it is reserved only for those who belong to the highest social class. However, Oudin later contradicts, by stating that it is used for “quasi à l’endroit de tout le monde.” (Oudin, 1597: 7-21) Oudin’s attempt at qualifying the usage of vuestra merced is rather confusing. It can be said that perhaps the latter of the two phrases suggests limiting the usage of vuestra merced to the person who belongs to the highest social class within the setting. (Anipa, 2001: 196) Address forms are dependent on self-perception as well as the social standing of both addresser and addressee.
Salazar’s depiction of address forms within the dialogue is said to have been slightly dramatized to discuss the implications on incorrect usage of address forms. (Anipa, 2001: 201) It is interesting however, he did not use the form which is the least respected and has an aspect of shame attached to it, namely, tú. When tú was adopted from Latin by the Spanish language, it was used to address a singular person. However, during this period, it is used to address the people who belong to the lowest social class and those who are looked down upon in society. Contradictory to this, the grammarian, Minsheu, states that when addressing a slave, who belongs to the lowest social class, tú was not intended to demean. (Minsheu: 1599: 17) Despite what most people said regarding social classes, tú was not always used as a derogatory term and those addressed with said address form were not deemed as unequal individuals within society. Therefore, it can be implied that the different address forms and changing their usage were in fact, not used, as a way of distinguishing those of different social classes; but could depend on other factors.
Tirso de Molina’s play, Don Gil de las Calzas Verdes is an example in which this theory could be applied. Quintana is a more mature servant who Doña Juana who Quintana has faith in as she has worked their longer and addresses her with, vos yet, Caramanchel, a younger servant who has just started working in the household, Doña Juana addresses her with tú. It is interesting that despite these two characters having the same social occupation of servants and belonging to the same social class, they are addressed with different forms by the same person. (Moreno, 2002: 24-25) Evidently, sometimes social class does not always determine the most appropriate address form, but rather the closeness of the relationship and element of respect between both the addresser and addressee. The addresser may have changed the address they are using with the same speaker to denote the tightness of their relationship. Tú was often used to distinguish those in different classes, the difference in relationships between people. Address forms during this period in history were a complex sociolinguistic issue, often they were tacit, based on what was perceived to be correct between the addresser and addressee. This is echoed in the situation that occurred with Gonzalo and the Guard within Salazar’s book. While a dramatization, his book effectively portrays the difficulty address forms caused in the Iberian Peninsula during the Renaissance period. A time where social classes and hierarchy affected the lives of every individual within the Peninsula.
As the Renaissance progressed, to ease the tension and division in society, another form of address was added. The third person pronoun, él/ella, used in Modern Spanish, was originally used in the same way tú and usted are used today. It was normal that those who belonged to the lower social classes would use él instead of vuestra merced to denote deference and righteousness. (Anipa, 2001: 204) As an address form, it acted as a bridge between vos and vuestra merced. It could be said that this form would have been the most appropriate for Gonzalo to use in addressing the guard. One can imply that his job as guard means he does not belong to the highest social class and therefore should not have been addressed by vuestra merced. Él would have been a respectful form to be used in this situation. It is clear, however, that it is still a respectful form of address and appropriate for most situations where clarity is in doubt. Él/Ella is an interesting address form as it evolved as the Renaissance progressed to circumvent the problems address forms were causing in society. Yet, perhaps it hindered social equality, as its use created further uncertainty. The sociolinguistic complexity that arose from address forms, deteriorated when él/ella was introduced and created a bigger division among the social classes.
With all the different address forms, deciding which form to use in context became confusing. There was a lot of overlap and many different uses for each. There was no definitive answer for what address form was appropriate to use in particular circumstances which highlights the sociolinguistic issue. The overlapping and unclear meanings can be seen in Anipa’s Venn Diagram in which he illustrates the issues. He states that the purpose for looking at them more closely is, “to be able to demonstrate how extraordinarily they can be in practice.” (Anipa, 2001: 208) In order to select the correct form of usage, one must go through a process, and still potentially manage to insult the person they were addressing. This overlap also meant people often addressed the same person with lots of different address forms. Muller (1914) examined Pope Gregory I constantly changing address forms when talking to and addressing his bishops. (Muller, 1914: 69) Through his research, he discovered two main reasons behind this. Firstly, he often had to change his address form, as during his time as the Pope, the people who worked for him constantly changed and were from different social classes. He had to adapt his form of addressing towards his bishops depending on their status within the hierarchical society. The second reason were his personal feelings and changes to how he felt about his bishops. Muller’s investigation continued, yet he paid closer attention to the detail of the changes. He established that Pope Gregory I changed the forms of address he used in relation to his feeling towards a specific bishop, or feelings he felt that day, rather than their status within society. Muller’s research emphasises how, even though complication exists surrounding the usage of address forms during this period, the addresser often changes the form they are using subconsciously or depending on their feelings.
In addition, él/ella was also used interchangeably with vos to convey feelings of anger. Anipa states that él/ella could have been used in Salazar’s dialogue when the guard states, “vos me tratais de vos, yo digo, que vos sois vos, y no ay aquí otro vos sino vos.” (Ambrosio de Salazar, 1622, cited in Anipa 2001: 200) It would have been used as a way for them to avoid the hostile situation that arose. The changing of address forms depending on the feelings of both addresser an addressee is interesting. However, despite the debate sparked by grammarians, as Anipa states, native speakers would not have thought about their address forms as much as grammarians may have debated it. They perhaps would have only changed form had there been a serious conflict of interest. (Anipa, 2001: 230)
In conclusion, as the Castilian language developed throughout the Renaissance, a period where the hierarchical society was ever present, the issue of address forms was a pressing issue. Ambosio de Salazar’s book name presented the many problems that were caused as a result of these different forms. However, his book is dramatized in order to fully explain the complexity of the issue. As can be seen through the exploration of the different forms, it is hard to believe simply addressing someone incorrectly would have caused the conflict portrayed by Salazar in his book. The sociolinguistic debate seems to be based on the issue of self-perception. The addresser and addressee are viewing each other and perceive a comparative difference of social rank. This created conflict exacerbated by the confines of sociolinguistic parameters during this time. However, there becomes a point in which linguists need to draw the line as there seems to be no definite answer to what form of address is correct to use and when.