CONNOTATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ENGLISH AND SPANISH:
A PRELIMINARY STUDY
Theodor Maghrak-Sherve
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN
[email protected]
Abstract
When you hear the word burgundy, you think something different from when you hear the word red.
Although both words have to do with the same color, there are some large differences between their
respective interpretations. It is easy to see that words like these are different, but oftentimes difficult to
say exactly how. Extending the question of how these words differ, we arrive at the question this paper
addresses: How do the same words differ between two [or more] languages?
Surprisingly little has been written examining these connotative differences between languages.
Furstenburg et al. have demonstrated that there are large connotative differences between English
and French. The researchers found that different connotations in the two languages not only exist but
also can be misunderstood by, or completely unapparent to, speakers of the other language.
There is no literature examining the differences between English and Spanish. In this paper, the first
examining English and Spanish, I show that there are connotative differences between these two
languages and highlight the pedagogical importance of these findings.
Drawing upon Furstenburg et al. as a model, I examine data compiled from word association surveys
taken by native speakers of English (in Minnesota) and of Spanish (in Argentina); these word
associations approximate connotations. Responses are categorized into meaningful data units using
Rosch’s Prototype Theory.
By comparing the results of each word in English and Spanish, connotative differences are
illuminated. For example, Spanish speakers seem to associate school [escuela] with relationships of
power much more than English speakers [35% as compared to 3% of the responses]. Spanish
speakers seem to associate success with goals more than English speakers, who most associated
success with money. Future research directions and pedagogical importance are discussed in the final
portion of the paper.
Keywords - Linguistics, applied linguistics, prototype theory, connotation, L2 acquisition.
1
INTRODUCTION
When you hear the word burgundy, you think something different from when you hear the word red.
Although both words have to do with the same color, there are some large differences between their
respective interpretations. It is easy to see that words like these are different, but oftentimes difficult to
say exactly how. Extending the question of how these words differ, we arrive at the question this paper
addresses: How do the same words differ between two [or more] languages?
This question, like many linguistic questions, has to do with almost all aspects of life, including
language, the culture which one adopts as a child, social and educational levels, gender, and the
knowledge and understanding of words within one’s own culture. It also has to do with the
connotations of the predominant culture as well as personal connotations, which reflect each
individual’s unique mental processes. This paper aims to show that there are connotative differences
in respect to all words between native speakers of English and Spanish—for example between coffee
and café. These differences can be illuminated by a deep analysis of word associations.
2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The question of how to classify words has been a problem within academia for many centuries, and it
is necessary to review the various steps in the development of classification methods to understand
Proceedings of EDULEARN09 Conference.
6th-8th July 2009, Barcelona, Spain.
ISBN:978-84-612-9802-0
002810
this study. Even Aristotle tried to classify words; the Aristotelian system of classification is called the
classical approach [1]. This system has four basic propositions:
1. Categories are defined in terms of a conjunction of necessary and sufficient features.
2. Features are binary.
3. Categories have clear boundaries.
4. All members of a category have equal status. [1]
But there are many problems with this method. Wittgenstein shows these problems with the English
word game. He shows that you cannot establish a system of necessary features that make something
a game; there is no single feature that all games share [1]. You can say that all games are fun, but
many things not considered games are also fun [1]. Instead, Wittgenstein discusses features shared
by games like those shared by relatives, showing the fuzziness of the category game [1]. This
metaphor is easy to imagine: some games share the use of cards like some relatives share an eye
color, while other games share the use of a board like some relatives share the shape of their noses.
This example clearly shows that the Aristotelian classification scheme does not work with all words.
With this conclusion, Wittgenstein shows the necessity of a different classification system.
Another example comes from one of Labov’s studies, in which participants were shown drawings of
containers and were asked whether each was a glass or a bowl; they were also shown other drawings
of containers and asked whether each was a cup or a vase [1]. Labov found that there is no simple
way to distinguish between the categories, that is to say there is no fine line that delineates the two
categories, but it depends upon the relation between the width and the depth of the container [1]. This
shows that there is a continuum that exists within a category, with an optimal measure of each
attribute of the category [1]. This understanding opens the mind to a new manner of classification: a
system that uses a continuum instead of binary features.
One final example, which is used in the introduction, again shows the problems with the Aristotelian
system. By examining the Aristotelian rules, the problems are clear. Red and burgundy are reds, but
red is more ‘red,’ or has a stronger tint. They do not have equal status, because red is ‘red.’ As Rosch
elaborates, color categories are not Aristotelian, but they use a different system [2].
Rosch overcame the difficulties with the Aristotelian system by proposing a different classification
system: Prototype Theory. Using the example of colors again, you can see that within the category
red, there is a color that is most ‘red:’ the exemplary red, or rather the prototypical red [2]. This
prototype is a cultural construction, which can change little by little between individuals, but at the
same time, within a given culture, all people share the same basic prototype. This prototype, the
prototypical red, is located within a series of colors that, moving away from the prototype, become less
‘red;’ there is a ‘decreasing degree of membership’ within the category [2].
Moving from the world of colors to the world of ideas, Rosch postulates a system of degrees of
membership, in which something belongs to a group to a certain degree, in which there are neither
clear boundaries nor a strict, binary system of membership [1]. As stated above, the best examples of
each category are prototypical of those categories. This idea is Prototype Theory at its most basic: an
alternative to the defunct Aristotelian system.
Rosch demonstrates the strength of this theory in a series of experiments showing, among other
things, that there is remarkable agreement between participants [in this case, university students] in
terms of what constitutes each of the categories used in the study [2]. In this study, participants were
asked to say to what degree a piece of furniture [for example, a chair, a table and a mirror] belonged
to the category furniture. There was a great deal of agreement in the responses that a chair belonged
to the category more than a mirror, although both are pieces of furniture [2]. Later, Rosch et al.
showed that all objects could be categorized by comparing a series of features [like the shape of an
object or how it is used] [3]. This shows how you can classify objects using their features: these
objects are worn [like clothing], these are used for eating [like silverware], etc. Labov and Labov have
shown that even in a very young child’s lexicon, there are prototypes [4]. They noted this in the
categorization [by children] of animals as a cat [4]. The child in the study could say only two words,
including cat. They found that when an animal had more central features to the category cat, the child
felt more comfortable calling it ‘cat’ and felt less comfortable calling a less similar animal ‘cat’ [4].
The method of forming categories [in this case, situated around prototypes] is much simpler than the
theoretical language above implies. There are a series of rules of categorization used in many fields of
study, including linguistics and archaeology. A system of categorization should:
002811
1. maximize the number of attributes shared by members of the category; and
2. minimize the number of attributes shared with members of other categories. [1].
Archaeologists add a third consideration: the categorization system should be objective and explicit,
that is to say it should be a classification that any person can create using the same data [5].
It is important to understand the limitations of the theory before continuing with this study. There is no
assurance that any categories will be the same between cultural groups [2]. Within a culture, a
categorization can be objective regardless of small differences between the minds of different
individuals, and of course the manner in which each individual classifies, even with this creating some
small differences in what makes up a prototype within a culture. But by following the rules above, the
classification scheme will become as objective as possible because the prototype itself comes from
the culture, not from personal differences [2]. That is to say that prototypes are more similar between
people in a given culture than they are different, and this creates a certain measure of objectivity of
classification within the culture. Prototypes depend on the relative importance of each of their
attributes in a given culture [1]. It is also important to understand that you cannot define the categories
before the recompilation of data in a study like this [2].
One final note is that the prototypes of each category are very difficult to describe. As Aitchinson says,
‘…the more closely prototypes are examined, the more elusive they seem to be’ [6]. But this does not
mean that the categorization is not useful. It is difficult to say exactly what constitutes an animal, for
example, but within every individual’s mind there is something prototypically ‘animal.’ Prototype
Theory is very useful because all people have prototypes in spite of the difficulty of defining them.
Now that we have a basic understanding of Prototype Theory, it is necessary to discuss the study
used as a model for this study: The Cultura Project. Cultura was a study ‘…designed to develop
foreign language students’ understanding of foreign cultures, attitudes, concepts, beliefs, and ways of
interacting and looking at the world’ [7]. The investigators said that these things are very ‘abstract,
elusive, and difficult to access,’ and tried to use the study to learn them [7]. The study was performed
between students of French at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Cambridge and
students of English at the Institut National de Télécommunications in France [7].
In the study, surveys were distributed in the foreign language [and about the foreign language] to all
the students. Three types of surveys were used: ‘word associations’ [say what you think when you
read a word], ‘sentence completions’ [complete a phrase], and ‘situation reactions’ [how would you
respond in a certain situation?] [7]. Then, the results of each student were shared with the native
speakers of the foreign language. Through Internet chat, the students tried to resolve the differences
between the responses, or rather to understand why they gave different answers to the same words or
situations [7]. Here, it is necessary to understand that the connotation of a word has to do with these
word associations; this is juxtaposed with denotation, which defines the word.
The study showed that there are connotative differences between each word in the first survey, and
also that there are differences between the responses to the other two surveys [7]. They concluded
that the same word can have opposite connotations in the cultures and that the dominant ideas in
relation to each word can be normal and acceptable in one culture but the opposite culture can view
them in a very different manner [7]. For example, in the surveys, the American participants associated
doughnut with the word police, but the French participants did not and could not understand this
associaton [7].
This study aims to show that there are connotative differences between English and Spanish. The
differences will be defined using Prototype Theory. This study is crucial because, as Cultura shows,
there are connotative differences between two languages, and I aim to show that these differences
also exist between English and Spanish. These differences affect the teaching of each language as a
second language, something that will be discussed at the end of the study, and for this reason, the
phenomenon must be studied.
3
3.1
METHODOLOGY
Participants
The English-speaking participants were limited to people from Minnesota or Wisconsin, or university
students who had been in Minnesota for at least one year. This limitation was used to maintain some
level of similarity between the participants, in the hopes that within one year prototypes can be
002812
acquired. The idea is that there is something prototypical that can be learned, but it is unknown in
what amount of time. Due to this, one year of residence in the area was arbitrarily used in order to
make the study more feasible. The Spanish-speaking participants were limited to inhabitants of
Buenos Aires or university students who had been in Buenos Aires for at least one year for the same
reason. This precaution was taken to assure that the results came from the same dialect, in this case
the dialect of Minnesota and Wisconsin and the dialect of Buenos Aires. It is unknown if it is one
dialect between the two states or more than one, but both states were used, again, to make the study
more feasible. But the question of this study is not about the acquisition of a prototype or how many
dialects are in Minnesota and Wisconsin, but rather it is a question of the connotative differences
between the languages. The data consists of responses from 30 participants in an English survey and
15 participants in a Spanish survey.
3.2
Method
Following the model of Furstenburg et al., a twenty-word survey was used. The words can be seen in
tables 1 and 2, English to the left and Spanish to the right.
English
school
police
siesta
United States
Argentina
freedom
money
culture
success
strength
Tables 1 & 2: Words used in the surveys
Spanish
English
escuela
love
policía
honor
siesta
president
Los Estados Unidos
gay
La Argentina
beauty
libertad
partner
dinero
white
cultura
red
éxito
pronto
fuerza
hasta la vista
Spanish
amor
honor
presidente
gay
belleza
compañero
blanco
rojo
pronto
hasta la vista
The surveys were distributed on the Internet using the sites eSurveysPro.com and Facebook.com.
The surveys were available for completion over a period of twenty-two days in November 2007. Within
the surveys, participants were asked to write their initial thoughts upon reading each word.
4
ANALYSIS
After the surveys were closed, the answers were compiled and categories were created for all the
words used in the surveys, creating new categories each time with each pair of words. The categories
were made applying the classification rules discussed above. Within the analysis, the most common
examples of each category are shown.
4.1
School and escuela
The words school and escuela show many differences between the languages, results appearing in
table 3. In English, physical entities—homework, book[s], paper[s]—are associated with school in
English
Category
Physical entity
Abstract idea
Place [proper
noun]
Activity
Not prototypical
– evaluation
Characteristic of
friendship
+ evaluation
Relation of power
Example
homework
university
Brown
College
study
mornings
boring
friends
important
teachers
Table 3: School and escuela
Spanish
N
%
Category
25
39.9 Abstract idea
13
20.0 Relation of power
8
12.3
Example
educación
maestro[s]
N
13
10
%
35.1
27.0
5
4
3
2
7.7
6.2
4.6
3.1
Physical entity
Characteristic of
friendship
Activity
libro[s]
amigo[s]
4
4
10.8
10.8
aprender
3
8.1
2
2
65
3.1
3.1
100
– evaluation
Not prototypical
feo
niños
2
1
37
5.4
2.8
100
002813
39.9% of the answers. However, in Spanish, similar answers—libro[s], pizarrón—compose 10.8%. It is
evident that in English, physical things are associated with school much more than in Spanish.
In Spanish, abstract ideas—educación, esructura, clase—are associated with school in 35.1% of the
answers. These answers—university, class, high school—appear in only 20% of the English
responses. It seems that in Spanish, there is a greater association with ideas than in English.
A very strong distinction between the languages is clear in the responses that have to do with relations
of power. These responses in Spanish—maestro[s], alumno[s], estudiante[s]—appear in 27% of the
answers, while in English—teachers, professor—appear in a mere 3.1%. In Spanish, these power
relations are associated with school much more than in English.
4.2
Police and policía
We see more differences between the languages with this pair, answers appearing in table 4. In
English, we see a strong association with physical entities—car, light[s], badge—again, in 38.2% of
the answers. This association in Spanish—uniforme, revolver, gorra—is found in only 11.4%. It seems
that in English, people associate physical entities much more than in Spanish.
English
Category
Physical entity
Slang
– evaluation
Color
People
Not prototypical
– abstract idea
Abstract idea
[neutral]
Television
Place
+ evaluation
Example
car
cop
bad
blue
officer
bang
fear
law
SVU
prison
important
Table 4: Police and policía
Spanish
N
%
Category
26
38.2 Abstract idea
7
10.3 [neutral]
7
10.3 – abstract idea
6
8.8
5
7.4
Physical entity
5
7.4
4
5.9
– evaluation
3
4.4
2
2
1
68
2.9
2.9
1.5
100
Example
autoridad
N
13
%
37.1
represión
10
28.6
uniforme
4
11.4
injusto
3
8.6
Place
comisaría
3
8.6
Slang
cana
2
35
5.7
100
Again, we see a greater association with abstract ideas in Spanish—autoridad, control, orden—than in
English—law, authority, safety. These answers in Spanish make up 37.1%, in English 4.4%. These
ideas are classified as neutral because they either carry no strong positive or negative association or
could have either association and it was unknown which was intended [this classification method was
chosen, again, to make the study more feasible].
Talking about negativity, negative abstract ideas and negative evaluations can be combined. Negative
evaluation appears in almost the same percentage between the languages: 10.3 in English—bad,
unfair, fuck you—and 8.6 in Spanish—injusto, cruel. A difference is discovered in the associations with
negative abstract ideas. The Spanish responses—represión, corrupción, violencia—make up 28.6% of
the total, the English—crime, fear, trouble—a mere 5.9%. If the categories are combined, we see
more negativity associated with the police in Spanish: 37.2% in Spanish and 16.2% in English. It
should also be noted that only in English are police associated with color—blue, black, white.
4.3
Siesta
With this borrowing from Spanish to English, we see something curious. The results appear in table 5
[following page]. The most common responses are correlated between the languages: associations
with activities. Activities appear in 45.9% of English responses—nap, sleep, party—and in 45.5% in
Spanish—dormir, descansar. In English, specific places are referred to—Mexico, Spain, Europe—but
not in Spanish.
Most notable here is the association with Spanish in the English responses. The category Spanish
contains either Spanish words or proper names—Spanish, fiesta—but there are more in other
categories: activity—take a siesta, party; physical entity—party hat, piñata, confetti; place [proper
noun]—Mexico, Spain. If all these responses are combined, 36.0% [22] of the English responses have
to do with Spanish. Also notable is the association with the word fiesta. 19.7% [12] of the responses
002814
have to do with fiesta, whether the word party or the physical entity party hat. It is interesting that half
of the responses associating with Spanish falsely associate with the word fiesta.
English
Category
Activity
Not prototypical
Spanish
Place [proper
noun]
Physical entity
Food
4.4
Example
nap
afternoon
fiesta
Mexico
seat
food
Table 5: Siesta
Spanish
N
%
Category
28
45.9 Activity
11
18.0 Abstract idea
9
14.8 Heat
6
9.8
Not prototypical
4
3
61
6.6
4.9
100
Place
Example
dormir
sueño
calor
tarde
N
15
9
4
3
%
45.5
27.3
12.1
9.0
cuarto
2
6.1
33
100
United States and los Estados Unidos
There is a clear difference in the negativity associated with this country. The results appear in table 6.
English
Category
Abstract idea
[neutral]
Flag
Place [proper
noun]
Not prototypical
People
Evaluation
[neutral]
– evaluation
– abstract idea
+ evaluation
Table 6: United States and los Estados Unidos
Spanish
Example
N
%
Category
Example
home
14
21.5 Abstract idea
potencia
[neutral]
flag
10
18.4
of America
10
15.4 Not prototypical
yanquis
50
Bush
big
8
7
7
– abstract idea
People
Place [proper
noun]
Education
– evaluation
guerra
Bush
Hollywood
%
30.6
7
19.4
6
5
4
16.7
13.9
11.1
6
9.3
universidades
2
5.6
2
3.1
uf siempre lo
1
2.7
mismo
1
1.4
65
100
36
100
More negative evaluation is evident in the English responses—corrupt, gluttonous, abusive—than in
the Spanish—uf siempre lo mismo—constituting 9.3 versus 2.7%. However, it is fascinating that there
is more association with negative abstract ideas in Spanish—guerra, avaricia—than in English—
downfall, racism—constituting 16.7 versus 3.1%. Combining these results, we see more overall
negativity in Spanish [19.4%] than in English [12.4%].
4.5
corrupt
downfall
cool
12.3
10.8
10.8
N
11
Argentina and la Argentina
More differences are illuminated in reference to this country. The results appear in table 7 [following
page]. Culture-related answers in English—Spanish, dancing, soccer—outnumber those in Spanish—
mate, tango, fútbol—29.8 versus 11.1%. It is interesting that these types of responses are more
common in English. References to people appear in almost equal percentages: 15.8 in English—
Shakira, Kirchner, Emilio—and 13.9 in Spanish—Maradona, familia, amigos. It is also interesting that
in English, only specific people are associated with the word. As with previous pair, more negativity
appears in the Spanish responses.
4.6
Freedom and libertad
Within this pair, we see something interesting in English. The results appear in table 8 [following
page]. In the answers referring to physical entities, those in English—flag, jail bars, birds—outnumber
those in Spanish—cadenas—again, 18.3 to 3.5%. Notably, only in English, do we see references to
the United States—America, USA—and specific people—The Beatles, Bush, Colbert.
002815
4.7
Money and dinero
Interesting views of money are revealed in this pair, results appearing in table 9 [following page]. In
English, 15.4% of the answers are negative evaluation—corrupt, limiting, pointless—and 6.2%
negative abstract ideas—greed,shortage,downfall [21.6% combined]. In Spanish, 3.1% are negative
evaluation—difícil—and 9.0% negative abstract ideas—corrupción, devaluación, codicia [12.1%
combined]. It seems that Americans view money more negatively. Only in English do we see a
reference to the color of money—green. Perhaps this has to do with the emphasis on physical entities
evident in the English responses throughout this study.
English
Category
Culture
People
Place [proper
noun]
Evaluation
[neutral]
Geography
Abstract idea
[neutral]
Not prototypical
– evaluation
+ abstract idea
English
Category
Abstract idea
[neutral]
Physical entity
+ abstract idea
United States
Evaluation
[neutral]
+ evaluation
People
– abstract idea
– evaluation
Not prototypical
4.8
Table 7: Argentina and la Argentina
Spanish
Example
N
%
Category
Spanish
17
29.8 Abstract idea
[neutral]
Kirchner
9
15.8 + abstract idea
South
9
15.8 Evaluation
America
[neutral]
big
8
14.0 People
Example
país
N
9
%
25.0
belleza
rica
5
5
13.9
13.9
Maradona
5
13.9
south
attitude
6
4
10.5
7.0
– evaluation
mal
gobernado
4
11.1
high school
corrupt
beauty
2
1
1
57
3.5
1.8
1.8
100
Culture
– abstract idea
+ evaluation
mate
inmadurez
bella
4
3
1
36
11.1
8.3
2.8
100
Example
democracia
N
14
%
48.3
no existe
5
17.1
deseable
4
13.8
+ abstract idea
alegría
3
10.3
– abstract idea
Physical entity
Not prototypical
margen
cadenas
San Martín
1
1
1
3.5
3.5
3.5
29
100
Example
speech
flag
liberty
America
relative
Table 8: Freedom and libertad
Spanish
N
%
Category
13
21.7 Abstract idea
[neutral]
11
18.3 – evaluation
8
13.3
5
8.3
+ evaluation
5
8.3
desirable
The Beatles
slavery
unattainable
defiinitely not
China
5
5
3
3
2
8.3
8.3
5
5
3.5
60
100
Culture and cultura
There is a fascinating phenomenon between the languages in this pair. The results appear in table 10
[following page]. In both languages, the most common associations are those with human
endeavors—language, music, arte, literatura. In almost the same percentage are references to
identity—ethnicity, race, identidad, nacionalidad. The only category that does not match up is negative
evaluation, which does not appear in any English responses. This is the only pair of words in the entire
study in which almost all categories line up in percentages between the two languages.
4.9
Success and éxito
With this pair, we see many differences between the two languages. The results appear in table 11
[following page]. Notably, in English, success is associated more with neutral ideas—money, wealth,
goals—than with positive ideas—happiness, approval, winning—by a large margin, while in Spanish
the opposite is visible. It should also be noted that positive evaluation is present in English—happy,
002816
rewarding—but not in Spanish, while negative evaluation is present in Spanish—falso, sobreestimado,
para nadie—but not in English. Examining the neutral ideas more fully, we turn to table 12 [following
page]. The percentages in table 12 are percentages of the total responses to the word. In this table,
we see that in English these responses focus on money—money, wealth—and work—job, career.
Also mentioned are goals—goals, dreams—and family—family, soulmate. However, in Spanish, there
is an emphasis on goals—objetivos, meta, only one reference to money and no references to either
work or family.
English
Category
Color
Abstract idea
[neutral]
– evaluation
Form of money
Slang
– abstract idea
Not prototypical
Evaluation
[neutral]
+ evaluation
+ abstract idea
Activity
English
Category
Human
endeavors
Abstract idea
[neutral]
Evaluation
[neutral]
Identity
+ evaluation
English
Category
Abstract idea
[neutral]
+ abstract idea
Evaluation
[neutral]
+ evaluation
Example
green
power
Table 9: Money and dinero
Spanish
N
%
Category
15
23.1 Abstract idea
12
18.5 [neutral]
Example
poder
N
13
%
39.5
corrupt
bills
cash
greed
Washington
rich
10
6
5
4
4
3
15.4
9.2
7.7
6.2
6.2
4.4
Slang
plata
5
15.2
Form of money
peso[s]
4
12.1
+ abstract idea
– abstract idea
placer
corrupción
3
3
9.0
9.0
amazing
2
3.1
necesario
2
6.1
success
spend
2
2
65
3.1
3.1
100
Evaluation
[neutral]
Not prototypical
– evaluation
quiero más
difícil
2
1
33
6.1
3.1
100
Example
arte
N
9
%
31.0
intercambio
9
31.0
general
3
10.3
identidad
elitista
necesaria
3
3
2
29
10.3
10.3
7.1
100
Table 11: Success and éxito
Spanish
Example
N
%
Category
Money
44
72.1 + abstract idea
Abstract idea
[neutral]
happiness
12
19.7
to be earned
3
4.9
– evaluation
Example
felicidad
esfuerzo
N
11
8
%
37.9
27.6
falso
5
17.2
happy
personal
4
13.8
I want it all
1
29
3.5
100
Example
language
values
colorful
ethnicity
exciting
Table 10: Culture and cultura
Spanish
N
%
Category
26
40.0 Human
endeavors
16
24.6 Abstract idea
[neutral]
11
17.0 Evaluation
[neutral]
6
9.2
Identity
6
9.2
– evaluation
+ evaluation
65
100
2
3.3
61
100
Evaluation
[neutral]
Not prototypical
4.10 Strength and fuerza
In this pair, we see references to a second definition of fuerza: force. The results appear in table 13
[following page]. In English, we see associations with physicality—muscles, might, weights—and
mentality—perseverance, emotional, persistence—as the most common responses. In Spanish, we
002817
see associations with either force—movimiento, potencia, empuje—or strength—músculos, voluntad,
coraje. To compare the languages, we delve into the associations with strength, as shown in table 14.
Table 12: Neutral abstract ideas associated with success and éxito
English
Spanish
Category
Example
N
%
Example
N
Money
money
14
23
dinero
1
Goals
goals
6
9.8
objetivos
6
Work
job
10
16.4 --Family
family
4
6.6
--English
Category
Physicality
Mentality
Not prototypical
Abstract idea
[ambiguous]
References to the
media
Table 13: Strength and fuerza
Spanish
Example
N
%
Category
muscles
32
61.5 Association
perseverance 10
19.2 with force
family
5
9.6
Association
with strength
weakness
3
5.8
Mighty Mouse
2
3.9
52
100
Not prototypical
%
3.5
20.7
---
Example
movimiento
N
15
%
50
voluntad
11
36.7
qué lindo
4
13.3
30
100
The percentages in table 14 are of the total, to make a comparison between the responses possible.
In both languages, physicality is associated more with strength than mentality. It should also be
mentioned that in Spanish, 20% of the responses had to do with physics—Newton, vector. These fit
within the association with force, hence the lack of similar responses in English.
Table 14: Associations with strength in fuerza
Category
Example
N
%
Physicality
músculos
6
20
Mentality
voluntad
5
16.7
4.11 Love and amor
An interesting phenomenon is noted in this pair. Notably, the association with familial relationships is
far more common in Spanish—familia, madre, padre—than in English, constituting 19.4 and 4.3%.
Association with friendship is also very different, Spanish responses—amigos, amistad, friendship—
outnumbering English responses 16.1 to 1.6%. Interestingly, in English abstract ideas—heart,
relationship, peace—are more associated with love than in Spanish—relación, bondad, posibilidad.
4.12 Honor
Different responses are evoked in this word, appearing in table 15. We see a greater proportion of
positive abstract idea association in Spanish—orgullo, respeto, dignidad—than in English—respect,
pride, valor. In English, marks of honor—medal, purple heart—are associated more than in Spanish—
medalla, condecoración. These differences show the importance of honor, but show its differing
recognition between the languages.
English
Category
Abstract idea
[neutral]
People
+ abstract idea
Mark of honor
+ evaluation
State of being
Not prototypical
Example
integrity
soldier
pride
medal[s]
prestigious
death
Japan
Table 15: Honor
Spanish
N
%
Category
17
31.5 + abstract idea
10
9
7
6
3
2
54
18.5
16.7
31.5
11.1
5.6
3.6
100
Abstract idea
[neutral]
– abstract idea
– evaluation
Mark of honor
+ evaluation
002818
Example
orgullo
N
12
%
38.7
lealtad
8
35.8
deshonra
mentira
medalla
necesario
4
3
2
2
31
12.9
9.6
6.5
6.5
100
4.13 President and presidente
The responses for this pair appear in table 16. In the responses in English, we see 33.8% relating to
English
Category
Abstract idea
[neutral]
People
– evaluation
Evaluation
[neutral]
– abstract idea
Place
Table 16: President and presidente
Spanish
Example
N
%
Category
power
23
35.4 Abstract idea
[neutral]
Bush
22
33.8 – evaluation
liar
8
12.3
powerful
5
7.7
People
Example
país
N
15
%
46.9
corrupto
11
34.4
Kirchner
5
15.6
disgust
oval office
4
6.2
– abstract idea
fiasco
1
3.1
3
4.6
65
100
32
100
people—Bush, Obama, Hillary—and in Spanish only 15.6%—Kirchner, de la Rúa, Menem. In both
languages, there are references to the president at the time, past presidents, and candidates for the
presidency. There is also more negative evaluation in Spanish—corrupto, inepto, ladrón—than in
English—liar, cheat, posterboy for evil.
4.14 Gay
In this word, we see matters related to homosexuality and different opinions of it. The results appear in
table 17. We see a larger association with abstract ideas in English—rainbow, marriage, parade—than
in Spanish—colores, ropa, pelo. There are more negative associations in Spanish than in English.
English
Category
Abstract idea
[neutral]
Definition
People
+ evaluation
Evaluation
[neutral]
+ abstract idea
– abstract idea
Not prototypical
Example
rainbow
N
21
Table 17: Gay
Spanish
%
Category
34.4 Definition
homosexual
men
fun
open-minded
16
8
6
3
26.2
13.1
9.9
4.9
equality
conflict
gaywad
3
2
2
4.9
3.3
3.3
61
100
Example
homosexual
N
7
%
24.1
– abstract idea
Abstract idea
[neutral]
People
discriminación
colores
6
5
20.7
17.2
persona
3
10.3
+ abstract idea
– evaluation
Evaluation
[neutral]
diversión
los odio
fiel
3
3
2
10.3
10.3
7.1
29
100
4.15 Beauty and belleza
In this pair, we see an obsession with physicality in both cultures, or rather both languages. In both
languages, the most common responses have to do with physicality: in English—smile[s], makeup,
skinny—in 31.7% of the responses and in Spanish—físico, vanidad, coqueto—in 26.7%. In this pair,
Spanish responses having to do with physical entities—revistas, arte, imagen—outnumber those in
English—magazine, clothes, pictures—16.7 to 11.7%. It is curious that in both languages, magazines
are associated with beauty. Also notable is the presence of negative evaluation in both languages, but
positive evaluation only in English.
4.16 Partner and compañero
In this pair, compañero was chosen instead of compañera because in the investigator’s experience,
when the gender of a partner is unknown, the masculine form is used. It must be noted that the use of
compañero/a or compañera in lieu of compañero would likely have changed the results. In English,
35.6% of the references are made to romantic love—lover, life partner—but none are made in
Spanish. Instead, a large part [29.6%] of responses relate to friendship—amigo, amistad. These
references are far less prevalent in English. In English, there are references to homosexuality—gay,
002819
sexuality—sex, and what has been termed Old West—cowboy, howdy partner, ho-down. This is
interesting because it shows that Americans think more in terms of romantic love while Argentines
think more in terms of love between friends, but it is possible that this could be due to the use of
compañero instead of the other possibilities.
4.17 White and blanco
Speaking of colors, we note something interesting. Americans, once again, associate physical
entities—snow, milk teeth—more than anything else [23.3%]. At the same time, we see a strong
connection with colors in Spanish—negro, colores, color, sin color—in 46.7% of the responses, but
only one specific color: black. There are references to racism in both languages, although few, and it
is impossible to determine whether the reference to the color black in the responses is related to
people [as racism relates] or just the color.
4.18 Red and rojo
Similar associations appear between the languages with this color as well. In this case, we see strong
associations with physical entities in both languages: 54% in English—lipstick, heart—and 32.3% in
Spanish—sangre, fuego. Notably, there are two references to communism in Spanish—comunismo,
comunista—but none in English.
4.19 Pronto
A remarkable trend is visible in this borrowing from Spanish. The results appear in table 18. It is clear
that this word has fully become an English word by relating it to speed—fast, quickly—in 41.5% of the
responses and time—now, soon, right now—in 37.7% rather than associating it primarily with the
Spanish language. In fact, there are only three references to Spanish—Spanish, ándale, and Texas.
However, there are other uses in English referring to food—pup[s], corn dog. It is noteworthy that the
word does not convey the same urgency in English as in Spanish.
English
Category
Speed
Time
Abstract idea
[neutral]
Food
Example
fast
now
Spanish
N
22
20
6
pup[s]
5
53
Table 18: Pronto
Spanish
%
Category
41.5 Speed
37.7 Time
11.3 Not prototypical
– abstract idea
9.5
Urgency
100
Example
rápido
ya
para qué?
ansiedad
urgente
N
10
6
5
4
3
28
%
35.7
21.4
17.9
14.3
10.7
100
4.20 Hasta la vista
The power of American movies is evident with this phrase, as shown in table 19. As we see with
pronto, this phrase has been adopted perfectly as a closing salutation—see you later, good-bye—in
48.3% of the responses. There are only five references to Spanish in the answers: Spanish [two
occurrences], Texas, hasta luego, and te extraño. Incredibly, through its use in the movie Terminator,
Argentines associate the phrase with the movie in 28.0% of the responses: baby, Arnold, Terminator
and even gobernador de California.
English
Category
Salutation
Terminator
Abstract idea
[neutral]
Not prototypical
Example
see you later
baby
Spanish
Sylvester
Stallone
Table 19: Hasta la vista
Spanish
N
%
Category
28
48.3 Salutation
21
36.2
8
13.8 Terminator
Example
nos vemos
N
16
%
64.0
baby
7
28.0
1
boludez
2
8.0
1.7
– abstract idea
100
002820
100
5
LIMITATIONS
It is necessary to discuss the limitations of this study. First, it is important to understand that the
classifications used in this study were created by the investigator, and this affects the objectivity of the
study. Others could have created other categories; the categories are not definitive. Additionally, the
investigator remained in Minnesota during the course of the study. The website of the study was
distributed in Buenos Aires by one of the investigator’s peers. For this reason, the opportunity to
secure participants was greater for English speakers than Spanish speakers.
Equally important, it must be mentioned that the number of participants was very small, 30 speakers of
English and 15 of Spanish. This is important because although it is possible that the results are
representative of the cultures, more data must be gathered to verify this. If the results are
representative, they are representative of the participants: university students. The connotations, like
all cultural matters, can change between geographic areas, socioeconomic levels, ages, sexes, etc.
This study is a very basic study of a specific population, and it is impossible and inadvisable to
generalize about the two entire cultures based upon this study. It is not possible to overemphasize
this; it can only be said that connotative differences exist between the two languages.
6
CONCLUSION
This study aimed to answer the question: Are there connotative differences between English and
Spanish? The results indicate that there are differences, in some cases very strong and important. In
the future, more extensive and comprehensive investigations should use more participants,
participants from all socioeconomic levels and more geographic areas. A study could address the
hypothesis that Americans think more in physical entities and Argentines more in abstract ideas.
Another possible focus could be a concentration in the words and phrases borrowed into English;
word assimilation is a fascinating phenomenon, as the results of pronto and hasta la vista show.
An instructor must have an understanding of word associations and connotations to be able to teach
and learn a second language. The difficulty in learning a second language has to do with the
differences between the native language and the second language [8]. Lado says that ‘Individuals
tend to transfer the forms and meanings and the distribution of forms and meanings of their native
language and culture to the foreign language and culture’ [8]. The teacher needs to know the
importance of connotations as well as denotations and dedicate time to teaching them in order to
avoid this. This is necessary in order for the students to have a better control of the second language.
7
REFERENCES
[1] Taylor, J. R. [1995]. Linguistic categorization. New York: Oxford University Press.
[2] Rosch, E. [1975]. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General 104[3], 192-233.
[3] Rosch, E., et al. [1976]. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439.
[4] Johnson, K. [1985]. Prototype theory, cognitive linguistics and pedagogical grammar. Working
Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 1985[8], 12-24.
[5] Thomas, D. H., and R. L. Kelly [2007]. Archaeology: Down to Earth. Belmont, California: Thomas
Higher Education.
[6] Hadley, G. [1997]. Lexis and culture: Bound and determined? Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 26[4], 483-96.
[7] Furstenburg, G., et al. [2001]. Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The cultura
project. Language Learning and Technology, 5[1], 55-102.
[8] Gass, S. [2006]. A review of interlanguage syntax: Language transfers and language universals.
Language Learning, 34[2], 115-32.
002821