People generally never take the time to think about the various aspects of their native language, what vocabulary is preferred, how sentences are formed, the use of verb tenses, and even the way words can be stressed may differ from the way that others who speak the same language do in another country or area.
In the case of Spanish, and with respect to the field of translation, we often speak of three types of Spanish:
- Spanish for Spain
- Standard or Neutral Spanish
It is important that the person who is hiring translation services has this information present at the time of establishing the “flavor” of language. If the audience for whom the text is intended is in Spain, especially in unskilled general texts, differences with respect to Latin American Spanish can be clearly felt.
Some of the differences between Spanish from Spain and Latin America are evident. Here are several characteristics of Latin American Spanish and their counterpart in Spanish from Spain:
- Use of English neologisms without adaptation into Spanish (e.g. “Mouse” instead of the use in Spain of “ratón” when speaking of computers).
- Different use of tenses (e.g. The compound past (“hoy me he despertado temprano”) is more common in Spain while a Latin American would use the simple past (“hoy me levanté temprano”))
- In some Latin American countries, especially in Central America and Mexico, a period is used to separate the decimals from the rest of the number instead of a comma.
- Words of same spelling but different meanings (e.g. In Latin America people say “pararse” to mean “to stand up” whereas in Spain “pararse” means “to stop” and the verb for “to stand up” is “ponerse de pie”, in this sense creating obvious potential misunderstandings).
- Different uses of the second person plural, in Spain there is a difference between “vosotros” (when there is trust) and “ustedes” (as a show of respect); in Latin America, only “ustedes” is used without making the distinction.
- Use of vos, which is non-existent in Spain.
Also, while I touched on a few of the differences between these different “types” of Spanish, it clearly can be seen that it is important that they are carefully considered when shopping for translation or interpretation services, even if the project is directed only and exclusively to a particular country, to adapt to that country, so that the target audience receives the information in a way that is fully understandable and natural in their language.
Finally, there is an option called “neutral” or “standard” Spanish, which is a variant of Spanish without connotations on one side or the other, i.e. instead of using “ordenador” (computer) as you would for Spain or “computadora” as you would for Latin America, you opt for the more generic “PC” or “equipo”, i.e. trying to use a Spanish that is, to the greatest extent possible, neutral.
Good sellers of this type of services are able to guide the customer and make them see the importance of defining these parameters so they can get a product that is totally localized and focused on their needs.
(Spanish version: http://blog-de-traduccion.trustedtranslations.com/espanol-de-espana-de-latinoamerica-o-neutro-2010-10-15.html)
Tags: cultural differences, Latin American Spanish, neutral Spanish, regional variants, Spanish from Spain, spanish translation
Valid observations all, yet one crucial element is missing: the audience.
The issue in my opinion is not “which Spanish” but “which market” is one serving. Of course, if one answers “the world” I’d politely decline the job altogether, as client insanity is not a good omen nor a sound basis for a fruitful relationship.
“Which market” should drive the choice here. And that determines with crystalline authority which regional variant should be used. Period. I think it’s preposterous to even consider using a certain language to reach a given audience when it is spoken essentially by people a wide ocean away.
Then, there’s another, minor issue of skipping over the significant differences among variations of Spanish spoken throughout Latin America. Especially when common speech is involved, tailoring to the country of delivery is essential. So, in essence, I also object to lumping “Latin American Spanish” as a single variant. Yes, there is a good case to be made by pointing to greater coincidences than differences among variations of Spanish throughout Latin America, but no, I submit also that a Chilean, an Argentinian and an Uruguayan have much more in common among them than (say) with a Dominican or a Cuban.
Finally, allow me to introduce a wholly new fourth variant, spoken in a country with more native Spanish speakers than Spain has inhabitants, and yet has no discernible commonly accepted or less so outspoken identity. I refer to the United States of America, where – arguably mostly out of indifference – the Spanish translations in use are influenced most by sheer demographics, i.e. tweaking more and more toward the Spanish spoken in (particularly) the Northern half of Mexico. Sidestepping the seriously existing but sadly wholly ignored Northern American Academy for the Spanish Language, as well as the perhaps more controversy prone issue of “picking a common variant” I submit to the vast differences in a cultural and lexical sense, which in my opinion and validated by my experience in this country warrant an identity and a more clearly defined corpus as well. Cutting to a conclusion here, I’d say that translating into Spanish for consumption within the USA is not as easy a job as the perhaps well-intending but unhelpful reference to “Latin American Spanish” would suggest.
Still, while there is a lot of argue and debate about on this question, and certainly to me, there simply is no contest in providing the appropriate answer to the question “which Spanish” – it all hinges and should be driven by where and who the target audience is. It should be THEIR Spanish above all.
And finally: let’s not get overboard in our lexical and stylistic etiology and classification efforts. While it is true that there are some striking differences among the Spanish spoken throughout its about 500 million strong base speakers throughout an enormous space, it is also a remarkably cohesive and coherent language, certainly when compared to e.g. English, which has outright differences in its spelling (!) among its “native countries”. That is why the Association of Academies of the Spanish Language is both enormously valuable and yet mysteriously ignored too often, when considering an issue such as “which Spanish” to pick for a given translation.
A minimal interest in the people should automatically lead to the appropriate choice of correct language. And that is the whole essence of translation, internationalization and what not other instance of acting locally in a global market. It’s still a craft, and the pursuit of its mastery should imply working a lot harder to command the respect it inherently deserves. That we, as translators and interpreters also deserve, in ultimate deference to the “We, the people” that we serve. That is our language neutral Prime Directive: to not do harm by destructive interference, by unduly introducing alien notions.
Álvaro,
Very valid points, I agree with all of them. Market, market-segments, and audiences targeted are an all-important issue here.
I only take exception with “an Uruguayan”. It should be “a Uruguayan”.
Best regards,
Ugh – with apologies for hitting the “Submit Comment” button before reading the thing back… Chief crime among several felonies I committed against the English language above is the mysterious run-on sentence where I happily omitted a few words, i.e.: “Still, while there is a lot of ROOM TO argue and debate about on this question [...]” My apologies for my undue rush in typing it up. Lunch hour is just too short…
[...] For example, “step parents”, a word that in English is short and clear, is difficult to convey in so directly to the Spanish, which involves delving into the details of Latin American Spanish, Spanish of Spain, Puerto Rican Spanish, Neutral Spanish, etc. , as mentioned in this article. [...]