Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Tú, Usted and the construction of male heterosexuality in young, working class men in Tolima


This article examines the relationship between the use of the pronoun among working-class men and the perceived homosexuality of its use. In Colombia, the use of tú and ustedamong men is often a carefully considered linguistic choice, one that is tied to sexual identity and gender. While statistical studies have been done looking at this trend, prior research had not examined the reasoning behind this choice. In modern sociolinguistics and sociology, heterosexuality is not seen as a fixed aspect of a person’s being, but as a social identity that is managed through discourse. Embarking from Social Identity Theory, this research used a series of 20 extensive ethnographic interviews in Tolima, Colombia to explore the connection between heterosexuality and pronoun selection. After analysis using grounded theory, the article examines the idea that it is not homosexuality but heterosexuality that is constructed through careful pronoun use and that heterosexuality is actually a delicate construction. In this context, the article concludes that the sociolinguistic function of tú and usted is to serve as contextualization cues for the social distance required for men’s heterosexual social identity.


T-V distinction, heterosexuality, homosexuality, social identity, sociolinguistic identity

PDF (Español) HTML XML (Español)

Author Biography

Joshua James Zwisler

Estudió sociología y filosofía en la Universidad Macquarie de Australia, una especialización en investigación social y política también en la Universidad Macquarie y una maestría en lingüística aplicada de la Universidad Monash, también de Australia. Actualmente, trabaja en la Universidad del Tolima donde enseña lingüística general, sociolingüística y análisis del discurso. Sus áreas de investigación incluyen la Identidad Lingüística, Sociolingüística, Lingüicidio y Lenguas Indígenas.


  1. Becker, H. (1996). The Epistemology of Qualitative Research. In Jessor et al. (eds.). Ethnography and Human Development: Context and Meaning in Social Inquiry (pp. 53-72). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  2. Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. A. Sebeok (ed.). Style in Language (pp. 253-276). Cambridge: MIT press.
  3. Camargo Pongutá, D. (2013). Gender Positioning in the Development of EFL activities. Cuadernos de Lingüística Hispánica, (22), 147-166. Retrieved from DOI:
  4. Cameron, D. (1997) Performing gender identity: Young men’s talk and the construction of heterosexual masculinity. In S. Johnston & U. Meinhof (eds.). Language and Masculinity (pp. 47-64). Oxford: Blackwell.
  5. Cameron, D., & Kulick, D. (2003). Language and Sexuality. NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI:
  6. Castillo, J., & Marín, R. (2009). El tuteo como forma de tratamiento pronominal en la comunidad homosexual: un estudio sobre actitudes lingüísticas. In the memoir of Congreso Internacional de Lingüística Aplicada.
  7. Cohen, G. (2000). Identity, Belief, and Bias. In J. Hanson (ed.). Ideology, Psychology, and Law (pp. 385-404). NY: Oxford University Press. DOI:
  8. Curiosity Media Inc. (2010). Span¡shd!ct. Retrieved from
  9. Donaldson, M. (1993). What Is Hegemonic Masculinity? Theory and Society, 22(5), 643-657. DOI:
  10. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
  11. Du Bois, J. (2006). Transcription Symbols by Delicacy: Levels 1-4. Retrieved from
  12. Eckert, P. (1995). Constructing meaning, constructing selves: Snapshots of language, gender and class from Belten High. In K. Hall & M. Buchholtz (eds.). Gender articulated: Arrangements of language and the socially constructed self (pp. 469-507). London and New York: Routledge.
  13. Florez, L. et al. (1982). Atlas lingüístico-etnográfico de Colombia. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.
  14. Fontana, A., & Frey, J.H. (2005). The Interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd Ed.) (pp. 695-727). SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks.
  15. Gumperz, J. (1992). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Current Anthropology, 32(5), 613-623. DOI:
  16. Hall, J. (2011). Teaching and Researching Language and Culture. N.Y.: Routledge.
  17. Hughson, J. (2009). Diversity and changing values in address: Spanish address pronoun usage in an intercultural immigrant context. New York: Peter Lang. DOI:
  18. Jaspal, R. (2009). Language and social identity: A psychosocial approach. Psych-Talk, 17-20.
  19. Kiesling, S. (2007). Men, Masculinities and Language. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(6), 653-673. DOI:
  20. Kulick, D. (2000). Gay and Lesbian Language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 243. DOI:
  21. LaMarre, N. (2007). Compulsory Heterosexuality and the Gendering of Sexual Identity: A Contemporary Analysis. The New York Sociologist, 2, 16-26.
  22. Marín Esquival, R. (2012). El pronombre tú en los grupos homosexual y heterosexual heredianos. Revista Comunicación, 21(2), 31-40.
  23. Mestre de Caro, P. (2011). Alternancia de pronombres en el habla de Bogotá. Enunciación, 16(2). DOI:
  24. Michnowicz, J., & Place, S. (2010). Perceptions of Second Person Singular Pronoun Use in San Salvador, El Salvador. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 3(2), 353-377. DOI:
  25. Mostelier, C. (2007). En torno al tuteo en Costa Rica: acercamiento al fenómeno del tratamiento pronominal en la comunicación oral de los hablantes heredianos. (Tesis). Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica, Costa Rica.
  26. Navarro Gala, R. (2000). Una propuesta teórico-práctica para la enseñanza de formas de tratamiento de segunda persona en las clases de ELE. In Martin et al. (eds.). ¿Qué Español Enseñar? Norma y Variación Lingüísticas en la Enseñanza del Español a Extranjeros (pp. 551-558). Zaragoza: C.C. Cervantes.
  27. Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson Rethinking (eds.). Linguistic relativity (pp. 407-438). Cambridge University Press.
  28. Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (eds.) (2004). Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI:
  29. Editorial Larousse. (2006). Diccionario Americano de Dudas Lengua Española. Ciudad de México: Editorial Larousse.
  30. Quintanilla Aguilar, J. (2009). Actitudes de los hablantes de San Salvador hacia el tuteo y el voseo. Hispania, 92, 361-373.
  31. Rajogopalan, K. (2001). The Politics of Language and the Concept of Linguistic Identity. Cauce, 24, 17-28.
  32. Schandillia, A. (2015). Tú o Vos? The Culture Dilemma? Retrieved from
  33. Schwartz, P. (2007). The Social Construction of Heterosexuality. In M. Kimmel (ed.). The Sexual Self: The Construction of Sexual Scripts (pp. 80-92). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
  34. Simon, B. (2004). Identity in modern society. A social psychological perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI:
  35. Solano, Y. (1985). Formas de tratamiento diádico en el ambiente escolar en San Ramón. (Tesis). Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica, Costa Rica.
  36. Soler-Espiauba, D. (1994). ¿Tú o usted? ¿Cuándo y por qué? Decodificación al uso del estudiante de español como lengua extranjera. ASELE, 5, 199-208.
  37. Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London, England: Academic Press.
  38. Warren, J. (2006). Address Pronouns in French: Variation within and outside the workplace. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 29(2). DOI:


Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.