DR Spanish and globalisation

[Chirimoya]

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 Español 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.

[Lesley D]

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 opinión de que hay "contaminación" y no "contagio" como dice el autor del artículo. El inglés aunque no es el idioma más hablado del mundo es el idioma más universal. Por lo tanto, la "contaminación" 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 más 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 español 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) Dígale no a las drogas

2) Dígales no a las drogas

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

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

[juancarlos]

Originally Posted by Lesley D

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 opinión de que hay "contaminación" y no "contagio" como dice el autor del artículo. El inglés aunque no es el idioma más hablado del mundo es el idioma más universal. Por lo tanto, la "contaminación" 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 más 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 español 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) Dígale no a las drogas

2) Dígales 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]

Originally Posted by Lesley D

-this is a popular ad seen almost everywhere:

1) Dígale no a las drogas

2) Dígales 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 "dígale" 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) Dígale no a las drogas.

Or the way I've seen it most: (Tú) Dile no a las drogas.

I stand corrected

[Chirimoya]

Lesley D. - to be precise: Global communications.

[MrMike]

When the mothership arrives and we are all forced to speak only the telepathic language of our new alien overlords.

[Pib]

Originally Posted by MrMike

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) Dígale no a las drogas
2) Dígales no a las drogas

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

[Lesley D]

Thanks Chirimoya. I have noted the change in my dialogue going forward.

-LDG

Originally Posted by Chirimoya

Lesley D. - to be precise: Global communications.

[Lesley D]

Both phrases are problematic:

From a grammatical stand point # 2 appears correct:

Dígales 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”.

Dígale 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 piratería”

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 número de teléfono de el banco es: xxxxx

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

-Lesley D

[Lesley D]

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 máquina -> tipear
3. To beep (someone) -> bipear (completely a new verb formed from the usage of information technology)
4. To photocopy -> sacar una copia -> fotocopiar

Después de citar estos ejemplos supongo que mi español es viejo y de la otra época. Oh well!

-Lesley D


Please feel free to add some examples. I just thought of these now.