Article In:
Language, Culture and Society: Online-First Articles

The variation of the indefinite pronoun uno as a desubjectivizing resource by sex/gender

 | Universidad de La Laguna
In Spanish, uno (‘one’) is third person pronoun whose referent is categorically a first-person singular referent of human nature: “Uno quiere salir adelante” (‘One wants to go onwards’). It represents the person speaking, but a second person or a nonspecified group of referents may also be included in the reference. Speakers refer to themselves by using this pronoun, but at the same time, they intend to give a universal reading to the content. The use of uno (‘one’) promotes a desubjectivizing style of discourse suited to achieve certain concrete communicative goals. Desubjectivization is a cognitive process based on the gradual cognitive salience or accessibility of personal referents. In this investigation, uno (‘one’) is analyzed as a desubjectivizing resource by observing its use across sex/gender factors. Sex/gender will be approached as a covariating factor with the use of the pronoun uno, considering that it is a grammatical choice that will contribute to the construction of a communicative style. Two pragmatic referential readings of uno were isolated and their analysis was performed in a corpus of social media texts (Facebook, X and Instagram). Results reveal that men tend to create a more desubjectivizing style according to their frequency of using unevenly both readings of uno in all and social media text. In turn, women showed an increasing percentage of just one of the uno’s reading on the social media X, thus, women tend to create a less desubjectivizing style than men.
Keywords: one, sex/gender, variation, style, syntax
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction. The pronoun uno as a desubjectivizing resource
  • 2.Sex/gender as a covariating sociolinguistic factor and the creation of communicative styles
  • 3.Methodology and corpus
  • 4.Sociocommunicative analysis
    • 4.1Distribution of uno/una across social media texts
    • 4.2The distribution by sex/gender
    • 4.3The discursive-pragmatic nuances of uno and its distribution by sex/gender
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Note
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (56)
References
Aijón Oliva, M. A. (2019). Constructing us. The first and second persons in Spanish media discourse, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Talking about ‘others’: Referential readings and pragmatic functions of non-phoric plural third persons in Spanish media discourse. Lingua, 2431, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Grammatical coding and the discursive construction of participants: Spanish passives in written press news discourse. Transactions of the Philological Society, 120 (3), 351–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023). La variabilidad entre la construcción pasiva y la impersonal de se. Isomorfismo e interpretación contextual. In C. Quijada Van den Berghe et al. (Eds.), De Estepa a Salamanca: miradas en torno a la lengua, 857–871. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.Google Scholar
Aijón Oliva, M. A. & M. J. Serrano. (2013). Style in syntax. Investigating variation in Spanish pronoun system. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. (2016). A Matter of style: Gender and subject variation in Spanish. Gender and Language, 10 (2), 240–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. (2016). How gender shapes the world. Oxford: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, A. (2014). The Guidebook to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. (1971). Problemas de Lingüística General II. México: Siglo Veintiuno Editores.Google Scholar
Bhat, D. N. S. (2007). Pronouns. Oxford: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bucholtz, M. & Hall, K. (1995). Introduction: 20 years after Language and Woman’s Place. In M. Bucholtz & K. Hall (Eds.), Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self, 1–24. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (2011). Performing Gender Identity: Young Men’s Talk and the Construction of the Heterosexual Masculinity. In J. Coates & P. Pichler (Eds.), Language and Gender: A Reader, 250–262. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Coates, J. (2003). Men talk. Stories in the making of masculinities. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook-Gumperz, J. (2001). Girls’ Oppositional Stances: The Interactional Accomplishment of Gender in Nursery School and Family Life”. In B. Baron & H. Kotthoff (Eds.), Gender in Interaction, 21–50. Amsterdam: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cock, B. (2014). The discursive effects of Spanish impersonals uno and se. A case study of the phenomena of speaker inclusion and female-only reference. In G. Dylan & S. Mette (Eds.), Subjectivity and epistemicity. Corpus, discourse and literary approaches to stance, 107–120. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Diviney, L. (2019). James Bond is out; Jake Peralta is in. Medium (online resource) (Retrieved April 15, 2023).Google Scholar
Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J. (2009). Language and Identity. Cambridge: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finegan, E. (1995). Subjectivity and subjectivisation: an introduction. In D. Stein & S. Wright (eds.) Subjectivity and subjectivisation. Linguistic perspectives, 1–15. Cambridge: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flores-Ferrán, N. (2009). Are you referring to me? The variable use of uno and yo in oral discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 41 (9), 1810–1824. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, C. (2011). Conversation and interaction. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociolinguistics, 108–121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graham, G. S. & Hand, C. J. (2016). Motivation determines Facebook viewing strategy: An eye movement analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 561, 267–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henley, N. M. & Kramarae, C. (1994). Gender, power, and miscommunication. In C. Roman, S. Juhasz & C. Miller (Eds.), The Women and Language Debate: A Sourcebook, 383–406. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (2006). Gendered Talk at Work. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honeycutt, C. & Herring, S. C. (2009). Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and Collaboration via X. Proceedings of the 42th Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos: IEEE Press (Retrieved March 27, 2023).Google Scholar
Hosseini, M. & Tammimy, Z. (2016). Recognizing users gender in social media using linguistic features. Computers in Human Behaviour, 561: 267–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. E. (2009). Getting off the GoldVarb Standard: Introducing Rbrul for Mixed-Efects Variable Rule Analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 1, 359–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, B. (1996). The linguistic individual. Self-Expression in Language and Linguistics. Oxford: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1963). The social motivations of a sound change. Word, 19 (3), 273–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, R. 2004. Language and Woman’s Place (Texts and commentaries by M. Bucholtz) Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Lavandera, B. R. (1984). Tensión entre lo impersonal y lo personal en la organización del discurso. Variación y significado, 101–124. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Lawson, R. (2023). Language and mediated masculinities. Cultures, contexts and constraints. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Newman, M., Groom, C., L. Handelman & Pennebaker, J. (2008). Gender differences in language use: an analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes, 45 (3), 211–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macaulay, R. S. (1977). Language, social class and education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Malchukov, A. & Ogawa, A. (2011). Towards a typology of impersonal constructions: A semantic map approach. In A. Malchukov & A. Siewierska (Eds.), Impersonal Constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective, 19–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matte Bon, F. (1992). Gramática comunicativa del español. Madrid: Difusión.Google Scholar
Mills, S. (2012). Gender Matters. Feminist linguistic analysis. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
NGLE (2009). Real Academia Española and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua. Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (1999). Communicating gender. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2020a). La textualización de la desubjetivización: variación entre la perífrasis haber que+infinitivo y el clítico se. Oralia, 23 (1), 131–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020b). Shaping socio-communicative identities in interaction: the variable usage of the second-person object usted(es). International Review of Pragmatics, 121, 80–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). The Spanish second-person tú and usted as forms of address. Grammatical variation and cognitive construction. In Díaz Campos, M. (ed.) The Handbook of Variationist Approaches to Spanish, 298–311. Londres: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2022a). Defocusing and the third-person viewpoint: The pronoun uno and its covariation with clitic se in Spanish. Lingua, 2801, 1–22.Google Scholar
(2022b). Desubjectivizing discourse through the use of the periphrasis haber que + infinitive in Spanish. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 171, 71–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2025). The variable construction of the speaker: The pronoun uno (‘one’) and its covariation with first-person singular in Spanish. Studia Lingüística, (in press).Google Scholar
Serrano, M. J. & Aijón Oliva, M. A. (2011). Syntactic variation and communicative style. Language Sciences, 331, 138–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serrano, M. J. & M. A. Aijón Oliva. (2014). Discourse objectivization, social variation and style of Spanish second-person singular tú. Folia Linguistica, 48 (1), 225–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, A. (2004). Person. Cambridge: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Introduction: impersonalization from a subject-centred vs. agent-centred perspective. Transactions of the Philological Society, 106, (2), 115–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Overlap and complementarity in reference impersonals. Man-constructions vs. third person plural-impersonals in the languages of Europe. In A. Malchukov & A. Siewierska (Eds.), Impersonal Constructions. A cross-linguistic perspective, 57–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starbird, K., Palen, L., Hughes, A. L. & Vieweg, S. (2010). Chatter on the red: what hazards threat reveals about the social life of microblogged information. Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer Supported Cooperative, 241–250. Georgia: University of Georgia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talbot, M. (2010). Language and Gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1972). Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the Urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society, 1 (2), 179–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., Dang, Y., & Chen, H. (2013). Examining gender emotional differences in web forum communication. Decision Support Systems, 55 (3), 851–860. DOI logoGoogle Scholar