DR Spanish and globalisation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chirimoya

Well-known member
Dec 9, 2002
17,850
982
113
For all language lovers, here is an interesting article from this morning's Diario Libre magazine section about the effects of globalisation on Spanish, with some input from a Dominican perspective. We had a lot of fun debating 'El Espa?ol de Santo Domingo' recently, so perhaps some might enjoy discussing this angle:

Does the influence (mainly of the English language) on Dominican Spanish, through global culture: commercial brands, the internet, immigration and international travel contaminate or enrich the language?

What do you like/dislike most about it?

I'm hoping this thread will jog Jane J., Joseito and others out of hibernation. ;)
 

Marianopolita

Former Spanish forum Mod 2010-2021
Dec 26, 2003
4,821
766
113
Gracias Chirimoya por el art?culo

First of all there is a myth about globalization. This phenomenon "globalization" dates back at least two decades (I refer to the attempt to globalize) but thanks to advanced technology and the subsequent usage of the internet the world is more globalized than ever before. The benefits of having "one world" per se is fast and mass communication at all times but unifying the world could be at the expense of language pollution.

Soy de la opini?n de que hay "contaminaci?n" y no "contagio" como dice el autor del art?culo. El ingl?s aunque no es el idioma m?s hablado del mundo es el idioma m?s universal. Por lo tanto, la "contaminaci?n" se nota en otras lenguas. Also, I don't believe that the presence or influence of English has become as problematic in Spanish speaking countries but it is problematic in Spanish spoken in the USA and in large cities in Canada because the two languages coexist.

The process of globalization has an influence on Dominican Spanish if the English word is used instead of the Spanish word to translate new words and terminology via the Internet, the media, information technology etc. This is where the RAE (la Real Academia) is challenged as well because only a certain amount of new words are accepted into the language yearly as official Spanish words. So therefore what is spoken and what is heard is not always correct.

I consistently observe two problems with language mixing that is occurring globally:

1) English as well is suffering because in many foreign countries the knowledge of English at a professional level (at least passable enough for signs) is lacking so one will see signs where the English is atrocious and sometimes funny.

2) Spanish words are invented to translate a concept in English that may not yet have a Spanish equivalent. Furthermore, each country may interpret that English word differently and thus have a different Spanish word.

The article failed to mention those key aspects. Although the world is trying to bend towards English, English is suffering too as a result.

I think the concept of globalization from a language point of view has its strongest impact on the technology sector. It's really difficult sometimes to come up with the right word and nuance in Spanish (hay que tener en cuenta que "el matiz" es m?s importante que el sentido a veces) and Spanish in my opinion simply is not evolving fast enough. I mentioned this in the other thread "el espa?ol de Sto. Domingo", every new verb in Spanish, especially those that are created because there is need to have the Spanish equivalent fall into the "ar" verb category. So over the past ten years thanks to computers and Spanglish there is an abundance of new "ar" verbs. This is also because "ar" verbs are easier to conjugate in comparison to "er" and "ir" verbs. They have less irregular forms.

Language in general is not static and spoken languages will continue to evolve otherwise they will be considered archaic or become extinct. Spanish is no exception to the rule. However, I do agree as stated in the article in Spanish speaking countries there should be some kind of sign law. In Sto. Domingo and others cities where Spanish is the official language signs should be in Spanish. I do not see the need for an English sign in the middle of Sto. Domingo. English signs should be limited to the tourist areas. As well, there should be laws that protect the usage of the language meaning the sign should be correct and not mean something else unintentionally.

Here is an interesting controversy that was going on a few years ago when I was studying in Puerto Rico and it had to do with signs. Our professor asked us which phrase is correct:

-this is a popular ad seen almost everywhere:

1) D?gale no a las drogas

2) D?gales no a las drogas

-You folks tell me. The answer is very interesting.

-Lesley D
-I am sure I will be back.
 
Last edited:

juancarlos

Bronze
Sep 28, 2003
676
0
0
Lesley D said:
First of all there is a myth about globalization. This phenomenon "globalization" dates back at least two decades (I refer to the attempt to globalize) but thanks to advanced technology and the subsequent usage of the internet the world is more globalized than ever before. The benefits of having "one world" per se is fast and mass communication at all times but unifying the world could be at the expense of language pollution.

Soy de la opini?n de que hay "contaminaci?n" y no "contagio" como dice el autor del art?culo. El ingl?s aunque no es el idioma m?s hablado del mundo es el idioma m?s universal. Por lo tanto, la "contaminaci?n" se nota en otras lenguas. Also, I don't believe that the presence or influence of English has become as problematic in Spanish speaking countries but it is problematic in Spanish spoken in the USA and in large cities in Canada because the two languages coexist.

The process of globalization has an influence on Dominican Spanish if the English word is used instead of the Spanish word to translate new words and terminology via the Internet, the media, information technology etc. This is where the RAE (la Real Academia) is challenged as well because only a certain amount of new words are accepted into the language yearly as official Spanish words. So therefore what is spoken and what is heard is not always correct.

I consistently observe two problems with language mixing that is occurring globally:

1) English as well is suffering because in many foreign countries the knowledge of English at a professional level (at least passable enough for signs) is lacking so one will see signs where the English is atrocious and sometimes funny.

2) Spanish words are invented to translate a concept in English that may not yet have a Spanish equivalent. Furthermore, each country may interpret that English word differently and thus have a different Spanish word.

The article failed to mention those key aspects. Although the world is trying to bend towards English, English is suffering too as a result.

I think the concept of globalization from a language point of view has its strongest impact on the technology sector. It's really difficult sometimes to come up with the right word and nuance in Spanish (hay que tener en cuenta que "el matiz" es m?s importante que el sentido a veces) and Spanish in my opinion simply is not evolving fast enough. I mentioned this in the other thread "el espa?ol de Sto. Domingo", every new verb in Spanish, especially those that are created because there is need to have the Spanish equivalent fall into the "ar" verb category. So over the past ten years thanks to computers and Spanglish there is an abundance of new "ar" verbs. This is also because "ar" verbs are easier to conjugate in comparison to "er" and "ir" verbs. They have less irregular forms.

Language in general is not static and spoken languages will continue to evolve otherwise they will be considered archaic or become extinct. Spanish is no exception to the rule. However, I do agree as stated in the article in Spanish speaking countries there should be some kind of sign law. In Sto. Domingo and others cities where Spanish is the official language signs should be in Spanish. I do not see the need for an English sign in the middle of Sto. Domingo. English signs should be limited to the tourist areas. As well, there should be laws that protect the usage of the language meaning the sign should be correct and not mean something else unintentionally.

Here is an interesting controversy that was going on a few years ago when I was studying in Puerto Rico and it had to do with signs. Our professor asked us which phrase is correct:

-this is a popular ad seen almost everywhere:

1) D?gale no a las drogas

2) D?gales no a las drogas

-You folks tell me. The answer is very interesting.

-Lesley D
-I am sure I will be back.

I think #2 is right. I know drugs are not people, but you are asking someone to "say no to them". It's plural, so it seems to me that digales is correct.
 

mariel

Dominisueca
Apr 7, 2004
514
6
0
Great thread

Lesley D said:
-this is a popular ad seen almost everywhere:

1) D?gale no a las drogas

2) D?gales no a las drogas

-You folks tell me. The answer is very interesting.

I think the right answer is #1. The way I see it is that "d?gale" is a verb in imperative form, as when you order someone to do something. The imperative form is used with only 3 pronouns: you (sing and pl) and we (as far as I can remember from my elementary/high school years). Therefore:

(Usted) D?gale no a las drogas.

Or the way I've seen it most: (T?) Dile no a las drogas.

I stand corrected :)
 

Pib

Goddess
Jan 1, 2002
3,668
20
38
www.dominicancooking.com
MrMike said:
When the mothership arrives and we are all forced to speak only the telepathic language of our new alien overlords.
I, for one, welcome our new alien overlords. :)



Originally Posted by Lesley D
-this is a popular ad seen almost everywhere:
1) D?gale no a las drogas
2) D?gales no a las drogas


I think the correct one is no. 1. No. 2 makes no sense.
 
Last edited:

Marianopolita

Former Spanish forum Mod 2010-2021
Dec 26, 2003
4,821
766
113
Juancarlos, Mariel y Pib

Both phrases are problematic:

From a grammatical stand point # 2 appears correct:

D?gales no a las drogas.

-Mariel you are correct it could be either of the imperative forms: Di, Diga or Digan
but the error lies with the usage of [le] vs. [les].

As Juancarlos stated:

The [les] corresponds to ? a las drogas? which is plural thus [les] instead of [le]. But the problem is ?las drogas? are not people. Therefore, it makes no sense (from a semantic point of view).

Some grammarians will say #1 is correct because the word ?drogas? is usually used in the plural but it "can" be considered a ?singular collective noun?. Although I have never come across that logic in Spanish (yet). It's more of an English phenomenon. Therefore [le] can refer to ?las drogas?.

D?gale no a las drogas.

Using the latter analysis # 1 is correct which I would use if I had to say it.

However, I prefer what I frequently see on the back of many cd covers.

?Diga no a la pirater?a?

I think the above example sounds much better in Spanish without the indirect object pronoun [le] or [les] because grammatically they do refer to people. In my opinion this is an example of the English influence on global communication because in English the campaign is as follows:

?Say no to drugs? or ?Say no to piracy?

In English its sounds legitimate but in Spanish translating this literally (which is what has been done) leads to grammatical and semantic anomalies as I pointed out.

Out from these examples I see three issues:

1) the influence of English in ?global communication? thus corrupting the Spanish language etc. and it is also stated in the article that it instigates the usage of English signs in Spanish speaking countries.
2) However, many Spanish signs are defective as is and global communication has nothing to do with obvious incorrect grammar noted in signs in Spanish countries.
3) In the USA Spanish signs are full of incorrect grammar. One common mistake I often see is (grammatically incorrect signs in general):

Ej. El n?mero de tel?fono de el banco es: xxxxx

-This is basic Spanish grammar completely overlooked all the time. It s/b [del].

-Lesley D
 
Last edited:

Marianopolita

Former Spanish forum Mod 2010-2021
Dec 26, 2003
4,821
766
113
Some interesting observations that I have made....

Here are some examples of how verbs have evolved due to global communication i.e., banking, Internet etc. Some verbs now have ?anglicized? forms. For example:

1. To fax -> mandar un fax -> faxear
2. To type -> escribir a m?quina -> tipear
3. To beep (someone) -> bipear (completely a new verb formed from the usage of information technology)
4. To photocopy -> sacar una copia -> fotocopiar

Despu?s de citar estos ejemplos supongo que mi espa?ol es viejo y de la otra ?poca. Oh well!

-Lesley D


Please feel free to add some examples. I just thought of these now.
 
Apr 26, 2002
1,806
10
0
No matter

Lesley D said:
Our professor asked us which phrase is correct:

-this is a popular ad seen almost everywhere:

1) D?gale no a las drogas

2) D?gales no a las drogas
-Lesley D
-I am sure I will be back.
I never knew there was a difference. Where I learned to speak Spanish (Barahona), both phrases would be pronounced in the exact same way ("Digale no a la droga"), with the actual meaning to be derived from context.
 

Bugsey34

Bronze
Feb 15, 2002
567
0
0
In terms of this phrase, I think Lesley is right that no indirect object is required at all. If the you cannot answer the question "Say no to who?", it does not call for the use of an indirect object. Grammatically it should be "Diga no a las drogas" o "Di no a las drogas".

In terms of the globalization of Spanish, every language has gone through periods of change based on what is happening culturally at the time, this just happens to be a period of change for Spanish. But these changes are happening all the time all over the world for various reasons. It's up to the RAE to stand for traditional Castellano and make sure it thrives, most of which is happening only in Spain anyway. But by my comments above, I mean that it's not really a horrible thing anyway. If language was some static thing that only played by the rules, it wouldn't be any fun then would it?
 

Marianopolita

Former Spanish forum Mod 2010-2021
Dec 26, 2003
4,821
766
113
Porfio_Rubirosa,

The difference is not in the meaning, the analysis has to do with the grammatical rules that must be taken into account. However, I will tell you why the phrases are the same pronunciation wise for some speakers. Once again it's an example of how Caribbean Spanish is defective from a phonetic standpoint and to the point where it interferes with the formation of a proper grammatical phrase. As we all know it is characteristic of some speakers of Caribbean Spanish to drop the final . Therefore, D?gales no a las drogas is pronounced by some as D?gale no a las drogas. However, if you follow the grammatical rules these two phrases are not the same.


-Lesley D


Porfio_Rubirosa said:
I never knew there was a difference. Where I learned to speak Spanish (Barahona), both phrases would be pronounced in the exact same way ("Digale no a la droga"), with the actual meaning to be derived from context.
 

juancarlos

Bronze
Sep 28, 2003
676
0
0
Very interesting, Lesley. It simply shows that, sometimes, things are not as simple as they appear. You are right about the grammatical rules, however I had some doubts because drugs are not people and it sounds kind of odd. Still, I decided to go with the rules, but Diga no a las drogas sounds better to me, as another poster mentioned.
 

Hillbilly

Moderator
Jan 1, 2002
18,948
514
113
I do not think that that language "borrowing" should be the issue

I would be much more concerned with phonetic variations imposed by massive publicity.
One such case-to me at least-is super evident. VERIZON

In Spanish, this should be seen and pronounced: ver EEE zon, or ver eee ZON.

Nevertheless, the radio and television ads follow the English pronunciation and we get: Ver AY zon.

The phonetic conflict is that Spanish speakers are looking at what should be an EEE sound and saying AY.

That is what I would call "contamination."

Just 2? from

HB :D:D
 

bcmike

New member
Jan 29, 2004
132
0
0
Hillbilly said:
I would be much more concerned with phonetic variations imposed by massive publicity.
One such case-to me at least-is super evident. VERIZON

In Spanish, this should be seen and pronounced: ver EEE zon, or ver eee ZON.

Nevertheless, the radio and television ads follow the English pronunciation and we get: Ver AY zon.

The phonetic conflict is that Spanish speakers are looking at what should be an EEE sound and saying AY.

That is what I would call "contamination."

Just 2? from

HB :D:D
Except that Verizon is a proper name. so it must be pronounced as such.
 

Marianopolita

Former Spanish forum Mod 2010-2021
Dec 26, 2003
4,821
766
113
What you are saying is incorrect.....cuidado por favor

Hillbilly,

Although language evolves the rules of grammar never change. What you suggested is a huge faux-pas according to the Spanish rules that govern the following: 1) pronunciation of names of places in Spanish (top?nimos), 2) foreign proper names 3) phonetic transcription (normas de transcripci?n) from one language to another.

According to Spanish grammar rules most names of places from English to Spanish have phonetic transcription and the reason why is because both languages use Latin alphabetization. Therefore it?s possible to find close phonetic equivalents. There are exceptions to this rule. However, using your example Verizon, the English pronunciation should be retained in Spanish according to the rules that govern the pronunciation of foreign proper names.

Example of ?top?nimos? from English to Spanish:

Jerusalem = Jerusal?n
Japan= Jap?n
Jamaica= Jamaica (with Spanish phonetics)

Proper names like ?Verizon? retain the pronunciation of the ?source language?.

Reference: Manual de Espanol Urgente.

-Lesley D





Hillbilly said:
I would be much more concerned with phonetic variations imposed by massive publicity.
One such case-to me at least-is super evident. VERIZON

In Spanish, this should be seen and pronounced: ver EEE zon, or ver eee ZON.

Nevertheless, the radio and television ads follow the English pronunciation and we get: Ver AY zon.

The phonetic conflict is that Spanish speakers are looking at what should be an EEE sound and saying AY.

That is what I would call "contamination."

Just 2? from

HB :D:D
 
Last edited:

Chirimoya

Well-known member
Dec 9, 2002
17,850
982
113
It's not so rigid in my experience. Place names are not the best analogy because the Spanish 'top?nimo' could be as much from the source language as it is from English.

Verizon is a brand name, and in the commercial world these rules are quite flexible. Off the top of my head, let's take 'Burger King': in Spain it's pronounced phonetically more or less according to Spanish rules: Voorgerr Keeng. Dominicans (and I am guessing all Latin Americans) say Verger Keeng, following the English pronunciation rather than the Spanish.

There are other examples like this, which indicate that it is just a matter of habit, that could be based on an accidental decision or even a whim. Verizon was presented to the DR public as Verizon pronounced the English way. Had the marketing people here decided to adapt the pronunciation to VerAYsong it would have stuck. (I remember that when I first saw the word my inclination was to pronounce it the French way. Not sure why, it just looked like a French word to me.)

Did anyone else notice that when Orange was launched in the DR they introduced the term 'movil' for mobile phone, which is European usage, when in the DR the American 'celular' was the word people used for their cellphones. Was this deliberate or the result of poor research into the local market? A couple of years down the line the term 'movil' is becoming more common, and is used by other companies too.

The car make Jaguar is pronounced the Spanish way by all Spanish speakers as far as I can tell.

As we're discussing global communications and language here, the link would be that the dominance of the English language in global media such as TV and internet will ensure that the English pronunciation of global brand names will end up prevailing.
 

Marianopolita

Former Spanish forum Mod 2010-2021
Dec 26, 2003
4,821
766
113
Chirimoya,

When you say the rules are quite flexible- according to whom and to what source? They are not flexible. I think the general population is not aware that rules such as the ones that I mentioned exist. Therefore using your example of "Burger King" for the lack of knowing how to say it in English (English phonetics) they use the Spanish phonetics. But the correct and acceptable way would be the English pronunciation of "Burger King" when you are speaking Spanish. Don't forget the way people speak is the worst source; rules are broken all the time unfortunately. One of my mandatory translation courses that I took this year dealt specifically with this concept and the rules of grammar do apply. Lack of knowledge is why the rule is being broken. Even in Spain. As well, if people are trying to change the pronunciation of Burger King phonetically then there should be an orthographic change as well in Spanish and I know the English spelling is retained.

The source language pronunciation is the "rule". What people actually say is a whole different story.

I do understand what you are saying and probably I would have agreed if I just spoke Spanish and did not have any grammar and professional background etc. but I have noticed that people who speak Spanish and have studied the language i.e. teachers, translators, journalists etc. and other language related fields that require years of study would not say Burger King the "Spanish way" etc. Journalists are always my best example when they read the news in Spanish and they come across an English word they use English pronunciation which is correct.


-Lesley D


Chirimoya said:
Verizon is a brand name, and in the commercial world these rules are quite flexible. Off the top of my head, let's take 'Burger King': in Spain it's pronounced phonetically more or less according to Spanish rules: Voorgerr Keeng. Dominicans (and I am guessing all Latin Americans) say Verger Keeng, following the English pronunciation rather than the Spanish.
.
 
Last edited:

Pib

Goddess
Jan 1, 2002
3,668
20
38
www.dominicancooking.com
The thing -that has nothing to do with rules- is that one may sound a bit pretentious when using 'the correct pronounciation'. Specially in languages other than English that is more common around here.

Chiri and I have discussed this: Most times I refrain from pronouncing many 'foreign' words correctly simply because it sounds affected to my ears, even when I know perfectly well the correct pronounciation. A lot of people could be doing the same thing.

An example: I can pronounce the French Rs correctly. However, if I am speaking either Spanish or English and I have to say, Creme Brul?e, for example, I don't use 'french rs' because it makes me sound like Pepe Le Peu. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.