| Abstract: The traditional accepted usage of "le" as a direct
object pronoun in Spanish (leísmo) is limited to refer to men only.
If the direct object is a woman, the Real Academia and others prescribe
the use of "la." This usage is overtly sexist. A group of 45 native-speakers
of Spanish was compared with a group of 39 native-speakers of English after
all completed a judgment task containing 24 sentences illustrating a variety
of both sexist and non-sexist usage. Neither group reflected the prescriptive
sexist grammar--both groups accepted "le" as an accusative pronoun for
both men and women.
Key Words: sexist language, leísmo, acquisition, pronouns
Most Spanish teachers have become aware of the issues
surrounding sexist language and some have become adept at identifying and
correcting possible offensive language. Nevertheless, the idea of sexism
in Spanish has been defined much less thoroughly than it has been in English.
This is partly due to the grammatical structures of the two languages:
relatively few nouns are marked for gender in English, while all nouns
are so marked in Spanish. Grammatical markings for gender, whether a speaker
is referring to a human or an inanimate object, are unavoidable in Spanish,
and finding a genderless option to avoid possible sexism is surely impossible
(Whitley 1986; Greenberg 1966).
There is, however, a vigorous movement to
avoid so-called sexist language in Spanish. Mathews (1995) points out that
movements to avoid sexist usage in Spanish and English have followed very
different paths--while English speakers have coined non-gender-specific
language where sexist terms exist, Spanish speakers have coined gendered
terminology where none has existed before. Indeed, most of the published
comments on sexist language in Spanish have dealt with the invention of
"equalizing" terminology for occupational terms (Mathews 1995; Lathrop
1987).
Sexist language in Spanish
In Spanish there are two areas where sexism
regularly becomes problematic. First, there is a possibility to be exclusive
when using occupational terms. These have been discussed already at length
earlier (Mathews, 1995). Second is the Spanish pronominal system. Subject
and direct object pronouns in Spanish are overtly marked for gender (e.g.,
él, ella, nosotros, nosotras, lo, la, etc.).
Sexist clitics in Spanish
The unstressed object pronouns in Spanish
are often referred to as clitics. The forms discussed here are limited
to the direct and indirect object pronouns, which of course can be masculine
or feminine, singular or plural. In addition, the direct object paradigm
has a form for the neuter singular. Lunn and DeCesaris (1992) point out
that Spanish pronouns are increasingly less specific as to gender and number
the more oblique they become with reference to the subject of a sentence.
That is, subject pronouns are marked for gender and number in all three
persons. Direct object pronouns are marked for gender and number only in
the third person. Indirect object pronouns are marked only for number,
and reflexive pronouns are not even marked for number in the third person.
Sexist language can occur in Spanish wherever
a gendered pronoun (i.e., subject or direct object pronoun) is used to
refer to an unspecific or non-gendered person as an antecedent. Nevertheless,
since all antecedents need to be assigned gender in Spanish, there is no
way to produce a gender-neutral solution (see Mathews, 1995). It should
follow, then, that in the case of genderless pronouns (i.e., indirect and
reflexive object pronouns) we can dispense with any need for gender agreement
and only concentrate on number agreement. However, this is not the case.
With the common and accepted use of "le," the indirect object pronoun,
to replace "lo," we reintroduce a possibility of sexism.
The prescriptive use of "le," "lo," and "la"
The traditionally accepted usage of "le" as
a direct object pronoun in Spanish is limited to refer to men only. If
the direct object is a woman, the Real Academia and others prescribe the
use of "la." For example, the sentence "I do not know him" can be
expressed as either "No lo conozco" or "No le conozco," whereas
the sentence "I do not know her" can only be expressed as "No la
conozco" (RAEL 1983, 424-425).
The use of "le" in this context, is called
leísmo, and although not normative it is a dialectical variant
that is prestigious and is widely used throughout the Spanish speaking
world. It has been described by most prescriptive grammarians.
Obviously this definition of leísmo
is sexist. As a general rule, indirect objects are people. El leísmo
allows the simplification of the masculine paradigm--if an object (either
direct or indirect) is a man you can use the pronoun "le", but if a direct
object is a woman, you must use the object pronoun "la," as you would for
any other feminine thing. Thus, in the accusative, men are referred to
as people, women are objects. You may only use the pronoun "le" to refer
to a woman if she is the indirect object. This objectification of women
and personification of men is overtly sexist.
Years ago as a student learning Spanish in
an area that is predominantly leísta, I was unaware of the
peculiarities of the rule. I figured that if a direct object was a person,
I could use "le" instead of "lo" or "la." Only years later did I
find out that I had acquired the wrong rule. The impetus for this study
was to find out if other learners of Spanish, both native and non-native,
have "learned the wrong rule."
The collection of data and the judgment task
For this project I first presented a grammatical
judgment task to a group of native Spanish speakers. The task contained
a list of sentences that presented a variety of contexts for "lo," "le"
and "la." The subjects were asked to judge the sentences as acceptable
Spanish or not acceptable. The responses were compared to traditional prescriptive
grammar.
Second, I presented the same grammatical judgment
task to a group of English speakers who had learned Spanish through residency
in Spain. All of these speakers were Intermediate or Advanced on the ACTFL
Scale. These subjects were asked to judge the same sentences as acceptable
or unacceptable.
The subjects
As mentioned above, there were two groups
of subjects. The first group was made up of 45 native speakers of Spanish
from Tenerife, Canary Islands. They were all junior high and high school
students between 14 and 18 years old, and were all born and reared in Spain.
Of this group, 20 were males and 25 were females.
The second group was made up of 39 native
speakers of English. Thirty-four were males and five were females. All
of the members of this group had lived in Spain. The shortest residence
was three months and the longest was 24 months. The average time spent
in Spain was 20 months. About half of this group were college students
and the others were either not in school or had graduated.
The judgement task
The individuals in both groups were given
a list of 24 sentences in Spanish, plus two more sentences that served
as a control. The list was identical for both groups. The subjects marked
each of the sentences as "good" or "bad"--meaning that they could imagine
a native speaker saying the sentence in question or they could not. The
sentences provided contexts for the different uses of "le" "lo," and "la".
Table 1 shows the different possible contexts, the sentences used to illustrate
them, and the prescriptive "correctness" of each sentence--incorrect sentences
are marked with an asterisk. The sentences were presented in random order
on the judgment task and not in the order in which they appear in Table
1.
Table 1 The sentences in the judgment task
* Sentences marked with an asterisk are deemed ungrammatical by the
Real Academia.
† Sentences marked with a cross illustrate leísmo.
Direct Object Masculine Thing |
|
| 1. |
Estos libros, ¿dónde los pongo? |
| 2. |
Si usted tiene mucho dinero, debe guardarlo en el banco. |
| 3. |
Mi padre me regaló un libro y le leí la semana pasada. |
| Direct Object Masculine Person |
|
| 4. |
Carlos es tan malo que tengo ganas de golpearlo. |
| 5. |
Si Mauricio no me escribe pronto, lo voy a matar. |
| 6. |
† Señor García, mucho gusto conocerle. |
| 7. |
† Mis hermanos están muy animados porque Ana María
les invitó a su fiesta. |
| 8. |
† Sr. Martínez, tengo que verle esta tarde por favor. |
| Direct Object Feminine Thing |
|
| 9. |
¿Dónde pongo estas cosas? --Debes ponerlas en la mesa. |
| 10. |
Lencho tenía dos vacas, y las ordeñaba todos los
días. |
| 11. |
La familia Suárez vive en una casa nueva; le construyeron el
año pasado. |
| Direct Object Feminine Person |
|
| 12. |
Federico se casa mañana con Dolores. La conoció hace
más de un año. |
| 13. |
La señorita González es tu maestra y tienes que obedecerla. |
| 14. |
*† Marta es estupenda; vamos a recomendarle para el puesto. |
| 15. |
*† Juan se acercó a su abuelita y le besó en la mejilla. |
| 16. |
*† Mi hermana es buena acrtiz; le vi en el teatro Colón la semana
pasada. |
| Indirect Object Masculine |
|
| 17. |
Llévale los calcetines a tu hermano. |
| 18. |
Como Pepe es muy amigo del dueño, le dieron un precio muy reducido. |
| 19. |
Lo escribió una carta a Paco. |
| 20. |
A Nacho lo dije que tuviera más cuidado. |
| Indirect Object Feminine |
|
| 21. |
Le traigo el sillón a María. |
| 22. |
Le mandé dos cartas a mi hermana ayer. |
| 23. |
A mi hermana, la presté mi suéter negro. |
| 24. |
La traje a mi mamá lo que me pidió. |
Three possible phenomena, differing from the
ideal pronominal system, present themselves in the items from the judgment
task. The first is leísmo, using "le" for "lo" (which is
acceptable) or "le" for "la" which is said to be unacceptable. The second
is laísmo which is the use of the accusative "la" in place
of "le" and which is specifically prohibited in many Spanish grammar books,
meaning that many native speakers tend to do it (it is parallel to "ain't"
and the double negative in English). The third we can call loísmo,
the use of the accusative "lo" for "le." This does not seem to be a dialectical
variant in Spanish, acceptable or otherwise.
The results and analysis
The data were compared to try to understand
the conception among natives and non-natives of the possible sexist nature
of pronoun use in Spanish. Have they realized that Spanish allows the use
of a personal compliment replacement if an accusative referent is a man,
but insists on the use of an object complement if the same referent is
a woman? More importantly, do native or non-native speakers consistently
judge sentences to be ungrammatical if they do not follow these rules?
Comparing natives to prescriptive grammar
Emphasis when looking at the data was placed
on those items that were deemed ungrammatical by prescriptive standards
and those that were leísta. In addition to the sentences
listed in Table 1, two control sentences were judged by each subject. These
were listed first on the judgment task and were, as I judged them, unmistakably
grammatical.
The native speakers were in total agreement
that the first control was indeed grammatical, but 4 natives (or 9%) judged
the second control sentence to be ungrammatical. This kind of inconsistency
in response is typical of native speakers on all kinds of grammaticality
judgment tasks. Still, on the control items, the native speakers were in
agreement with prescriptive grammarians 96% of the time. This indicates
that at least they understood the nature of the task.
However, several of the items showed rather
startling results. Table 2 shows the response rates for the native speaker
group on those items that might illustrate sexist usage.
Table 2 Native speaker responses
* Items marked with an asterisk are deemed ungrammatical by the Real
Academia |
|
|
|
|
|
Acceptable
|
Unacceptable
|
|
|
| Item |
Number |
% |
Number |
% |
| Leísmo--masculine antecedent |
|
|
|
|
6
7
8 |
23
39
33 |
51 %
87 %
73% |
22
6
12 |
49 %
13%
26% |
| Leísmo--feminine antecedent |
|
|
|
|
*14
*15
*16 |
31
40
26 |
69%
89%
58% |
14
5
19 |
31%
11%
42% |
| Laísmo |
|
|
|
|
*23
*24 |
14
10 |
31%
22% |
31
35 |
69%
78% |
| Loísmo |
|
|
|
|
*19
*20 |
3
15 |
7%
33% |
42
30 |
93%
67% |
Notice that in sentence numbers 6, 7, and
8, the sexist leísta examples were judged correct by 51%,
87% and 73% of the native speakers, respectively, whereas sentences 14,
15 and 16, the supposedly unacceptable uses of leísmo were
judged correct by 69%, 89% and 58% of the native speakers. Statistically,
there is no difference between these two judgments, that is, the native
speakers judge the use of "le" to be equally correct with either masculine
and feminine antecedents (t = 0, p = .50). Nevertheless,
on average 71% of the natives approved of both kinds of sentences, meaning
a sizable minority considered them unacceptable.
It is also notable that items 23 and 24, which
display laísmo, were rejected by the native speakers at 69%
and 78%. Items 19 and 20, showing loísmo, were rejected at
93% and 67%. This is in keeping with what prescriptive grammarians would
predict. Laísmo although considered "incorrect" is a common
dialectical variant, particularly at lower socio-economic levels, whereas
loísmo should sound wrong to any native ear. However, again
the difference in responses is not statistically significant (t
= -0.76, p = .29).
Items 3 and 11 represent aberrations so bizarre
in Spanish that they don't even have a name, yet they were deemed acceptable
by 12% and 27% of the native speakers, respectively.
Comparing the judgments of native males to those of native females
Since the native speaker sample was well represented
with both male and female subjects, the responses were compared based on
the sex of the subjects. Table 3 shows the responses of the native speaker
group for those items that were the emphasis of this study.
Table 3 Native speaker responses by sex
The number indicates the number of subjects that rejected the item
as ungrammatical.
* Items marked with an asterisk are deemed ungrammatical by the Real
Academia |
|
|
|
|
|
Male
|
Female
|
|
|
| Item |
Number |
% |
Number |
% |
| Leísmo--masculine antecedent |
|
|
|
|
6
7
8 |
14
2
7 |
70 %
10 %
35 % |
8
4
5 |
32 % †
16 %
20 % |
| Leísmo--feminine antecedent |
|
|
|
|
*14
*15
*16 |
4
1
8 |
20 %
5 %
40 % |
10
4
11 |
40 %
16 %
44 % |
| Laísmo |
|
|
|
|
*23
*24 |
14
12 |
70 %
60 % |
17
23 |
68 %
92 % † |
| Loísmo |
|
|
|
|
*19
*20 |
19
12 |
95 %
60 % |
23
18 |
92 %
72 % |
The only sentences on which the judgments
differed significantly were items 6 and 24. Seventy percent of the males
found item 6 to be ungrammatical compared to only 32% of the females (c2
= 6.421, p < .05). The opposite was the case with item 24, where
92% of the females rejected the sentence compared to only 60% of the males
(c2 = 6.583, p < .05).
I can only assume that these are anomalies, because the males and females
rated so similarly on other similar items (cf. items 7, 8 and 23).
Comparing non-native judgments by male vs. female
Owing to difficulty found obtaining a sample
of relatively young native speakers of English who had acquired Spanish
while living in Spain, the makeup of the native English-speaking group
was quite lopsided. Only 13% of the sample were women and therefore, making
a comparison of judgment responses based on sex is unreliable. Nevertheless,
in contrast to the native Spanish-speaking group, there were no significant
differences between the 34 men and 5 women on any of the items in the judgment
task.
Comparing natives to non-natives
The English-speaking group was similar in
many ways to the native speaking group. They also displayed a lack of agreement
on the whole as to whether most sentences were acceptable or not. In all,
75% of these subjects judged the masculine leísta sentences
to be grammatical, while 66% accepted the feminine leísta
sentences as grammatical. Although a higher percentage of English speakers
rejected the leísta sentences than did the native speakers,
the difference between "le" for "lo" and "le" for "la" is far from statistically
significant (t = .87, p = .47). Table 4 shows the rate of
ungrammatical judgment for the non-native group and the native speaker
group
Table 4 Non-native and native responses compared
The number indicates the number of subjects that rejected the item
as ungrammatical.
* Items marked with an asterisk are deemed ungrammatical by the Real
Academia |
|
|
|
|
|
English Speakers
|
Native Spanish Speakers
|
|
|
| Item |
Number |
% |
Number |
% |
| Leísmo--masculine antecedent |
|
|
|
|
6
7
8 |
15
2
12 |
39 %
5 %
31 % |
22
6
12 |
48 %
13 %
26 % |
| Leísmo--feminine antecedent |
|
|
|
|
*14
*15
*16 |
13
11
15 |
33 %
28 %
38 % |
14
5
19 |
31 %
11 % †
42 % |
| Laísmo |
|
|
|
|
*23
*24 |
17
26 |
44 %
67 % |
31
35 |
69 % †
78 % |
| Loísmo |
|
|
|
|
*19
*20 |
36
31 |
92 %
79 % |
42
30 |
93 %
37 % |
As with the comparison of native speakers
by gender, there are two items, 15 and 23, in which statistically significant
differences obtained in the data. However, they were not the same items
found in Table 3 and again, I feel that the difference is merely an anomaly.
Conclusions
By administering this judgment task I wanted
to shed light on the competence that exists in native speakers of Spanish,
as well as non-native speakers of Spanish regarding their acceptance of
direct and indirect object pronouns. I wondered if any speakers had internalized
the grammarians' rules that allow the use of leísmo only
if an accusative referent is a man, and not if the same referent is a woman.
In addition, I wondered if native and non-native speakers consistently
judge sentences to be ungrammatical if they do not follow those rules.
I found the answers to be negative in both
cases. It seems that most of the time the native speakers of Spanish in
my sample allow any human direct object, either male of female, to be replaced
with "le." Both situations were judged correct 71% of the time. This may
lead some to ask whether the sexist norms of Real Academia and others reflect
a usage that is disappearing or whether they reflect wishful thinking on
the part of an aging mostly-male institution.
The non-native speaking group had acquired
a similar competence to that of the native group. They accepted the masculine
leísmo 75% of the time and the feminine leísmo
66% of the time. Since it is unlikely that many of the non-natives learned
to accept the feminine leísmo in school or from grammar texts
(most grammar texts claim it to be incorrect if they mention it all), I
conclude that the non-natives have acquired the similar rate of acceptance
from the native-speaker community. In addition to making logical sense,
this makes an argument that my native sample may indeed be fairly representative
of peninsular Spanish-speakers.
From the data presented in this paper, it
appears that the overt sexism explained in Spanish textbooks and grammar
books is not descriptive of contemporary Spanish usage.
Furthermore, both native and non-native subjects
were relatively consistent in rejecting the use of direct object pronouns
for the dative case--loísmo and laísmo. The
native speaking group rejected the use of "lo" 65% of the time, and the
use of "la" in 74% of cases. The non-natives seem more tolerant of the
use of "la" which they rejected only 56% of the time, while at the same
time they rejected "lo" more often that the native speakers--86% of the
time.
This may represent a general confusion among
native speakers of English regarding the distinction between direct and
indirect objects. El leísmo may indeed be easier to acquire
because the distinction is basically not grammatical but pragmatic. Simply
put--use "le" if the pronoun represents a person. The rejection of "lo"
and "la" as dative pronouns, however, requires an internalized understanding
of the dative/accusative distinction, a difference that seems fuzzy in
English, to say the least.
Missing in this study is a breakdown of non-native
speaker judgments by sex. This is because all but five of the non-native
sample were males. Further use of the judgment task with female non-native
subjects may shed a different light on some of the results. It should be
noted however, that very few differences were noticed between males and
females in the native speaking sample.
In conclusion, if the data collected here
are indeed representative of the acquisition of gendered clitics in Spanish,
it may be that the sexist passages in our dusty grammar texts can be excised,
since they do not represent any actual reality.
Works Cited
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. "Some universals of grammar with particular
reference to the order of meaningful elements." Universals of language.
2nd ed. Ed. Joseph J. Greenberg. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. 77-113.
Lathrop, Thomas A. 1987. ¡De acuerdo! Un enfoque comunicativo,
estructural y cultual. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Lunn, Patricia Vining, and DeCesaris, Janet A. 1992. Investigación
de gramática. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Mathews, Thomas J. 1995. "Avoiding sexist language in composition: Complementary
solutions in Spanish and English." Mid-Atlantic Journal of Foreign Language
Pedagogy, Spring 1995: 72-82.
Real Academia Española de la Lengua. 1983. Esbozo de una nueva
gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.
Whitley, M. Staley. 1986. Spanish/English contrasts. Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.
|