Leísmo

''Leísmo'' ("using ''le''") is a dialectal variation in the Spanish language that occurs largely in Spain. It involves using the indirect object pronouns ''le'' and ''les'' in place of the (generally standard) direct object pronouns ''lo'', ''la'', ''los'', and ''las'', especially when the direct object refers to a male person or people.

''Leísmo'' with animate objects is both common and prescriptively accepted in many dialects spoken in Spain, but uncommon in most others. It thus typically correlates with the use of the preposition ''a'' for animate direct objects (for this "personal a", see Spanish prepositions). ''Leísmo'' is always rejected in linguistic prescription when the direct object to which it refers is not an animate object. For example:
:' ("I see the boy") → ''Lo veo'' (standard Spanish, with ''lo'')
:' ("I see the boy") → ''Le veo'' (''leísmo'', common in Spain; other regions prefer ''lo veo'')
:' ("I see the tree") → ''Le veo'' (not accepted in linguistic prescription — the tree is not a person)

''Le'' and ''les'' are properly speaking the epicene indirect object pronouns, used for both masculine and feminine antecedents, whether animate or inanimate. In certain dialects the reverse occurs and the indirect object pronouns are replaced by ''lo'' ''la'', ''los'', or ''las'' (''loísmo'' and ''laísmo''), but this usage is not accepted by the ''Real Academia Española'' (Royal Spanish Academy):

:''Le voy a dar un regalo (a él/ella)'' ("I am going to give him/her a present", standard) → ''Lo voy a dar un regalo''
:''Dile que la quiero'' ("Tell her I love her", standard) → ''Dila que la quiero''

Theoretical basis

There are various diachronic and synchronic reasons for the use of ''le/les'' for direct objects. To understand why there is vacillation and hesitation in usage, it is helpful to understand these often-conflicting linguistic forces.

;a) Influence of other pronouns and determiners
There is a strong tendency in Spanish, inherited from Latin, for pronouns and determiners to have a set of three different endings for the three genders. These are: ''-e'' or ''-o'' for masculine pronouns, ''-a'' for feminine pronouns and ''-o'' for neuter pronouns.

Thus, ''éste, ésta, esto''; ''ése, ésa, eso''; ''aquél, aquélla, aquello''; ''el, la, lo''; ''él, ella, ello''.

Hence some speakers say ''le vi'' ("I saw him") for any masculine person, ''la vi'' ("I saw her/it") for any feminine noun, and ''lo vi'' ("I saw it") to refer to an inanimate masculine noun (e.g. Vi al piso → ''Lo vi)'', or a clause (Viste lo que pasó anoche → ''Lo viste)''. This gives us a set like the above: ''le, la, lo''.

Furthermore, ''le'' also follows the pattern of ''me'' ("me") and ''te'' ("you") which operate as both direct and indirect objects.

*''Me ven'' ("They see me")
*''Te ven'' ("They see you")
*''Le ven'' ("They see him/her" - leísmo)

;b) Indirectness for humans — general
There is a tendency, discussed at Spanish prepositions, to treat as indirect objects those direct objects which happen to refer to people. Hence some speakers say ''le/les vi'' "I saw him/her/them" when referring to people and ''lo/la/los/las vi'' "I saw it/them" when referring to things. This is known as ''leísmo de persona'' and is permitted by the Real Academia Española (RAE) only when used in the masculine singular (i.e. ''le'' to mean "him").

;b1) Indirectness for humans — respect for the interlocutor
The general tendency to use indirect objects for people also occurs when the speaker wishes to convey respect. The second person formal ''usted'' is conjugated the same as the third person, hence some speakers use ''lo/la/los/las vi'' "I saw him/her/it/them" when speaking about a third party or an object, but ''le/les vi'' "I saw you" when the pronoun is intended to represent ''usted/ustedes''. This is known as ''leísmo de cortesía'' and is permitted by the RAE.

;b2) Indirectness for humans — contrast with inanimate things
The general tendency to use indirect objects for people is intensified when the ''subject'' of the sentence is not human, thus creating a contrast in the mind of the speaker between the human and the thing. Hence some speakers say ''la halagó'' "he flattered her" when the subject is "he" referring to a person, but ''le halagó'' "it flattered her" when the subject is "it", a thing.

;b3) Indirectness for humans — humanity otherwise emphasised
The general tendency to use indirect objects for people is intensified when the humanity of the person who is the object of the sentence is emphasised by the way the verb is used. Hence some speakers opt for a subtle distinction between ''lo llevamos al hospital'' "we took/carried him to the hospital" when the patient is unconscious and ''le llevamos al hospital'' "we took/led him to the hospital" when the patient is able to walk.

;b4) Indirectness for humans — with impersonal ''se''
The general tendency to use indirect objects for people is intensified when the impersonal ''se'' is used instead of a real subject. This is to avoid the misinterpretation of the ''se'' as being an indirect object pronoun. Hence some speakers say ''se le lee mucho'' "people read him/her a lot" if "''se''" means "people" and "''le''" means "him/her", and reserve ''se lo/la lee mucho'' "he/she reads it a lot for him/her" for sentences in which the "''se''" is not impersonal.

Usage in practice

All of the theoretical reasons for using ''le/les'' detailed above actually influence the way Spanish speakers use these pronouns, and this has been demonstrated by various surveys and investigations. Not all usage of direct-object ''le/les'' is dialectal, however. In some cases, it is universal across the educated Spanish-speaking world.

Let us first look at dialectal extremes. There is ''leísmo'' (covered under point a above) motivated by the tendency towards masculine ''e'' in uneducated Madrid speech. This actually used to be quite standard, and the ''Real Academia'' only stopped endorsing it in the 1850s. We therefore find in old texts:

Such speakers would say ''le afirman'' in reference to a word like ''el hecho'', ''la afirman'' in reference to a word like ''la verdad'', and ''lo afirman'' only in reference to a general neuter "it".

The second extreme ''leísmo'' is the one motivated by the second point mentioned: the tendency to use indirect objects for people. This is noticeable in Northwestern Spain, especially Navarre and the Basque Country (autonomous community), Basque Country, where regional speech uses ''le vi'' for "I saw him/her" and ''lo/la vi'' for "I saw it". The same phenomenon is sporadically heard elsewhere, e.g. in Valencia (autonomous community), Valencia and Paraguay.

Now let us look at less extremely dialectal cases. For the majority of educated speakers in Spain and parts of Latin America, neither of the two tendencies (a or b) is enough on its own to justify the use of ''le/les''; but ''together'' they are. Thus, speakers who would reject sentences like ''le vi'' for "I saw it" and ''le vi'' for "I saw her" would nevertheless accept and use ''le vi'' for "I saw him". Indeed, this use of ''le'' to mean "him" is so common in an area of central Spain that some would call the use of ''lo vi'' to mean "I saw him" an example of ''loísmo, loísmo/laísmo'', i.e. the dialectalism whereby ''lo'' is overused. The Real Academia's current line is that ''le'' for "him" is officially "tolerated".

A case on which the Academy is silent is the tendency described in point b1. It is perfectly common in educated speech in many parts of the world to distinguish between ''no quería molestarlo'' "I did not mean to bother him" and ''no quería molestarle'' "I did not mean to bother you". Those Spaniards who would not just say ''le'' anyway for the reasons explained in the last paragraph are likely to use ''le'' in this case. Butt & Benjamin (1994) says that their Argentine informants made this distinction, whereas their ''loísta'' Colombian informants preferred ''molestarlo'' always.

The Academy is also silent on the tendency described in b2; however, it is universal across the Spanish-speaking world. In a questionnaire given to 28 Spaniards in the Madrid region, 90% preferred ''la halagó'' for "he flattered her" and 87% preferred ''le halagó'' for "it flattered her". García (1975) reports a similar but less extreme tendency in Buenos Aires: only 14% of García's sample said ''él le convenció'' for "he convinced him" (the rest said ''él lo convenció''). With an inanimate subject, a slight majority (54%) said ''este color no le convence''.

García reports Buenos Aires natives differentiating between ''lo llevaron al hospital'' and ''le llevaron al hospital'' depending on how active the patient is, although anecdotal evidence suggests that Argentines are more ''loísta'' than this, and would prefer ''lo'' in both cases.

Point b3 is also backed up by the fact that many Latin Americans distinguish between ''le quiero'' "I love him" and ''lo quiero'' "I want him" (or indeed "I want it").

See also

* ''Loísmo''
* Spanish object pronouns

References

External links

Leísmo
in the ''Diccionario panhispánico de dudas'' of the Real Academia Española (in Spanish)

{{DEFAULTSORT:Leismo
Spanish grammar