Analysis of the term ‘pariente’ as a form
of address in the Sikuani community of Puerto Gaitán (Colombia), by John Alexander Roberto Rodríguez

One of the factors that is most affected by acculturation is language. Spanish, as a prestigious language, has certainly made the Sikuani language lose representation and interest for new generations. Consequently, they make less use of it in everyday life. The preservation of a language and a significant number of speakers of that language does not guarantee the cultural identity of a people. It does not matter if the natives insist on declaring the contrary; reality is against the preservation of their linguistic identity.

The use of the Sikuani language is guided by social standards: to a colonist, a native can express himself in his native tongue if he desires to hide something from the person he is speaking to, or, if he does speak in his native language, he does it as a sort of demonstration, looking to satisfy the curiosity of the visitor and, in some cases, he may even be rewarded for it.

The data recorded while living with the indigenous community of Puerto Gaitán shows diaphasic differences in the use of both languages. If indeed adults speak and understand their primary language perfectly, they don't use it in every environment; youth and children understand but do not speak the language and when they do, it is only to so they are understood by their parents or family members. That is to say, the Sikuani language is for family interaction in the home. On the street with colonists, friends, and relatives they almost always speak in Spanish.

Now we find ourselves facing a contradictory problem and to a certain degree inherent to the collective conduct of the people in cultural conflict, expressible in purely linguistic terms: despite the marked and accelerated influence of the cultural paradigms of the white man, the ‘cognitive style’ of Sikuani prevails in the restricted use of their language, this –however the ‘disdain’ with which it is seen by the very natives themselves– represents a native value, and is considered the emblem of the people in the process of acculturation, a people that pretending to be another, 'better' people, has not ceased to see itself any differently in the mirror of its own identity. This is due to the fact that the Sikuani consider their language as a private tool and do not wish to share it with the foreigner.

One of the linguistic factors that most enables them to establish the type of relationships that are characteristic of a community (monoethic or polyethic) is found in their use of the forms of address. It is in these relationships where we see much more clearly and precisely the sensitivity of the language to social transformations. Prominent philologists in the country agree with this evaluation. One of them affirms that:

"It is also good to keep in mind that the linguistic sector of the pronominal and verbal forms used in directly addressing people is one of the most sensitive to social changes and that in the relationships between different social classes they are immediately and directly reflected." (Montes, 1967: 3)

Brown and Gilman (1960), in their universal model of forms of address, explain a series of fundamental and unavoidable ideas to bring us closer to the problem of interaction that natives and colonists experience in this area of Colombia. According to the authors, the use of the different forms of address that exist in any society are related to their feelings of solidarity and power. As they tell us, when there is reciprocity in addressing each other (use of the same intimate pronominal form between speakers), it is a definite sign of ‘solidarity semantics’. On the other hand, when instead of following the ‘rule of reciprocity’ they follow a rule of ‘non-reciprocity’, it is a sign of ‘power semantics’. What is important about the opinions of Brown and Gilman is the consideration of the language as a marker of social position and interpersonal relationships as well as a simple means of communication.

Research done a few years later by Catherine Rossfelder and Guy-Maxime Lizoir (1987) showed that, among the different conclusions they came to, one transcendental point was made: the forms of address ‘tú’, ‘usted’, and ‘su mercé’ are polysemes for they do not maintain a unique but a contextual character. This leads us to confirm that the forms of address are dynamic and depend on diatopes, diastratics and most of all diaphasics (situational context).

It is evident to devote serious analysis to these forms of address in order to try to explain the nature of the communicational phenomena within the Sikuani society starting with their contact with the white man’s language. Without a doubt, the use of Spanish by the Sikuani is determined by the type of relationship they has with the white man.

We begin by framing the general context in which the Sikuani community moves linguistically with respect to pronominalization. In the same study by Professor Montes titled Sobre el voceo en Colombia to which we previously alluded, it is evident that "When it comes to directly addressing people, the inhabitants of the various regions of Colombia today use, jointly, all of the resources that the Spanish linguistic system offered from the 15th - 16th centuries." (Montes, 1967: 17, bold print my doing). So, the forms of address ‘vos’, ‘tú’, ‘usted’, and ‘su mercé’ have more or less influence within the country. Colombia is a place that is rich in forms of address, due in part, from a historical point of view, to the level of contact with Spain, and socially in feudal relationships that made each region either open or egalitarian, or, on the other hand, extremely heterogeneous. (2) This ‘colorful mosaic’ makes up part of the regional folklore and gives each region, area, and town of Colombia their own identity.

The use of forms of address like class markers within socio-cultural contexts as well as outside of them, meaning, that those that forge regional and/or national identities and the ‘distinguishing value’ that Mireya Cisneros refers to is common to studies like these in Colombia (3) as well as in America and Latin America:(4)