Job Discussion Forums

[nomad soul]

Although this article is in the context of doing business with multinationals, it has relevance to TESOL.

Native English speakers are the world’s worst communicators
By Lennox Morrison, BBC | 31 October 2016
Source: http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20161028-native-english-speakers-are-the-worlds-worst-communicators

It was just one word in one email, but it triggered huge financial losses for a multinational company. The message, written in English, was sent by a native speaker to a colleague for whom English was a second language. Unsure of the word, the recipient found two contradictory meanings in his dictionary. He acted on the wrong one. Months later, senior management investigated why the project had flopped, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. “It all traced back to this one word,” says Chia Suan Chong, a UK-based communications skills and intercultural trainer, who didn't reveal the tricky word because it is highly industry-specific and possibly identifiable. “Things spiralled out of control because both parties were thinking the opposite.”

When such misunderstandings happen, it’s usually the native speakers who are to blame. Ironically, they are worse at delivering their message than people who speak English as a second or third language, according to Chong. “A lot of native speakers are happy that English has become the world’s global language. They feel they don’t have to spend time learning another language,” says Chong. “But… often you have a boardroom full of people from different countries communicating in English and all understanding each other and then suddenly the American or Brit walks into the room and nobody can understand them.”

The non-native speakers, it turns out, speak more purposefully and carefully, typical of someone speaking a second or third language. Anglophones, on the other hand, often talk too fast for others to follow, and use jokes, slang and references specific to their own culture, says Chong. In emails, they use baffling abbreviations such as ‘OOO’, instead of simply saying that they will be out of the office. “The native English speaker… is the only one who might not feel the need to accommodate or adapt to the others,” she adds.

With non-native English speakers in the majority worldwide, it’s Anglophones who may need to up their game. “Native speakers are at a disadvantage when you are in a lingua franca situation,” where English is being used as a common denominator, says Jennifer Jenkins, professor of global Englishes at the UK’s University of Southampton. “It’s the native English speakers that are having difficulty understanding and making themselves understood.”

Non-native speakers generally use more limited vocabulary and simpler expressions, without flowery language or slang. Because of that, they understand one another at face value. Jenkins found, for instance, that international students at a British university understood each other well in English and swiftly adapted to helping the least fluent members in any group.

Zurich-based Michael Blattner’s mother tongue is Swiss-German, but professionally he interacts mostly in English. “I often hear from non-native colleagues that they do understand me better when listening to me than when doing so to natives,” says the head of training and proposition, IP Operations at Zurich Insurance Group.

One bugbear is abbreviations. “The first time I worked in an international context somebody said ‘Eta 16:53’ and I thought ‘What the hell is ETA?’,” says Blattner. “To add to the confusion, some of the abbreviations in British English are very different from American English.” And then there’s cultural style, Blattner says. When a Brit reacts to a proposal by saying, “That’s interesting” a fellow Brit might recognise this as understatement for, “That’s rubbish.” But other nationalities would take the word “interesting” on face value, he says. Unusual words, speed of talking and mumbling don’t help, he adds — especially if the phone or video connection is poor quality. “You start disengaging and doing something else because there isn’t any chance of understanding,” he says. At meetings, he adds, “typically, native English speakers dominate about 90% of the time. But the other people have been invited for a reason.”

Dale Coulter, head of English at language course provider TLC International House in Baden, Switzerland, agrees: “English speakers with no other language often have a lack of awareness of how to speak English internationally.” In Berlin, Coulter saw German staff of a Fortune 500 company being briefed from their Californian HQ via video link. Despite being competent in English, the Germans gleaned only the gist of what their American project leader said. So among themselves they came up with an agreed version, which might or might not have been what was intended by the California staff. “A lot of the information goes amiss,” Coulter says.

It’s the native speaker who often risks missing out on closing a deal, warns Frenchman Jean-Paul Nerriere, formerly a senior international marketing executive at IBM. “Too many non-Anglophones, especially the Asians and the French, are too concerned about not ‘losing face’ — and nod approvingly while not getting the message at all,” he says. That’s why Nerriere devised Globish — a distilled form of English, stripped down to 1,500 words and simple but standard grammar. “It’s not a language, it’s a tool,” he says. Since launching Globish in 2004 he’s sold more than 200,000 Globish text books in 18 languages. “If you can communicate efficiently with limited, simple language you save time, avoid misinterpretation and you don’t have errors in communication,” Nerriere says.

As an Englishman who’s worked hard to learn French, Rob Steggles, senior marketing director for Europe at telecommunications giant NTT Communications, has advice for Anglophones. Based in Paris, Steggles says, “you need to be short, clear and direct and you need to simplify. But there’s a fine line between doing that and being patronising. It’s a tightrope walk.”

When trying to communicate in English with a group of people with varying levels of fluency, it’s important to be receptive and adaptable, tuning your ears into a whole range of different ways of using English, Jenkins says. “People who’ve learned other languages are good at doing that, but native speakers of English generally are monolingual and not very good at tuning in to language variation,” she says.

In meetings, Anglophones tend to speed along at what they consider a normal pace, and also rush to fill gaps in conversation, according to Steggles. “It could be that the non-native speaker is trying to formulate a sentence,” he says. “You just have to wait a heartbeat and give them a chance. Otherwise, after the meeting they come up and say, ‘What was all that about?’ Or they walk away and nothing happens because they haven’t understood.” He recommends making the same point in a couple of different ways and asking for some acknowledgement, reaction or action.

“If there’s no participation," Steggles cautions, “you don’t know whether you’ve been understood or not.”

(End of article)

[Snuff]

'Non-native speakers dumbfounded as they realise the simplified variety of the language they learned isn't used by native speakers' - a language learner's story.

I've been working with a French-owned language holiday programme over a number of years. They employ a mixture of French and English staff for the teaching and activity staff. The problem with addressing lower level students isn't limited to the English activity leaders, who demonstrated the issues raised in the article; the French staff, who were generally fluent in English, spoke to the students as if they were B2 or above in proficiency, regardless of their level.

In their defense, to be able to assess the proficiency of a recipient and select various language points that are appropriate is quite an advanced skill to learn, in an additional language.

One of the French members of staff noted with amusement on how I spoke to them and how I spoke on the phone, was like hearing two different languages.

[LongShiKong]

[yurii]

Although this focuses on English native speakers, it should be really 'Are monolinguals the worst communicators?' In some ways it's not fair, because the aspects mentioned will probably apply to monolinguals in the main, not just English native speakers per se. But I understand why the focus is on English native speakers.

I had a Spanish boss who could only speak Spanish and he'd talk to a Polish woman we both knew using really advanced vocab at times when she barely had A2 Spanish without realising she wouldn't have learnt such words. I had the same several years ago living with a monolingual French woman using slang words for job and so forth when she knew my French was rubbish at that time. But I guess you learn that way!


The problem is some monolinguals don't realise certain choices of words can make understanding difficult, whereas someone who has learnt several languages or is a language teacher, should, in theory at least, be able to choose an easier word / avoid phrasal verbs etc unless the listener has a high level.

[HLJHLJ]

This comes up fairly frequently in aviation English. There is a legal requirement for international pilots and ATC to have at least ICAO Level 4 English (which straddles B1/B2 in listening and speaking). However, there is no requirement for a native speaker to have sufficient language awareness that they can communicate clearly with someone who is ICAO Level 4. Personally, I think it should be a requirement in such a high stakes environment when English is being used as the lingua franca, but there is a lot of resistance from English speaking countries.

[RedLightning]

I agree that a language teacher/one instructing nonnative English speakers should take the aforementioned into consideration, but to suggest native English speakers are the worst communicators is ridiculous.
Although, blaming others for your own shortcomings/incompetence is a defining aspect of academia and enlightened thought, so I suppose this article makes a valid argument

[Knedliki]

[LongShiKong]

[Knedliki]

[LongShiKong]

[OhBudPowellWhereArtThou]

No contradiction between the two.

The examples given illustrate how one word can have two meanings

Apple= brand of computer, phone

apple= edible fruit

Blackberry= brand of phone

blackberry = edible fruit

[scot47]

An interesting thread. It raises a good point in how the acquisition of a foreign language makes the learner aware of the issues in language learning. All those who aspire to teach EFL should be required to have at least one foreign language. Beware the monoglot !

[nomad soul]

[LongShiKong]

[fluffytwo]

How is it the native speaker's (teacher's?) fault if a learner doesn't spot or know the difference between such basic items (to borrow Nomad's somewhat more explicit example) as 'BE (< > there) left' and simply LEAVE? One can't anticipate and avoid every last little linguistic difficulty (otherwise the language starts to lose its functionality), and non-natives at that low a level shouldn't be anywhere near senior management decisions that somehow end up costing hundreds of thousands of dollars if and when silly errors "slip into" the process.

It is one thing then to say that native speakers need to make allowances, but quite another to accept dumbing down or whatever to the point of being in turn patronized. Learners need to accept some responsibility sometimes, especially when they are flat-out wrong, and being the customer doesn't always make them right. And like it or not, if a learner's "understanding" and "use" of whatever linguistic item makes little or absolutely no sense to native speakers, why should that "latter" community rather than the learner be the one who has to "learn" and adapt? That's not going to really happen is it, even with a reasonably laissez-faire language like English.

It would help of course if some indication of the range of functional exponents were given and a compromize thrashed out (e.g. one could perhaps ask How many do we still have Or how many are there still in the warehouse rather than How many are left), but articles that veil numbskull learner errors in shrouds of hand-wringing self-flaggelating secrecy aren't exactly helping matters. (Note the head scratching in this very thread as to quite what the very basic but oh so very costly mistake in that multinational company could possibly have been).

And does anyone else find it hard to take seriously any pronouncements from a trainer (the Chia Suan Chong mentioned in the original article) who from one of her blogspot posts apparently couldn't (even after 5 whole minutes with virtually the entire class shouting at her increasingly incredulously!) quite understand what film title was being said by one of her students (Resident Evil, apparently). Yes, we've all experienced difficulties each way when it comes to communicating, but teachers (well, supposedly trained ones) should be able to find and show ways of ensuring the general if not exact meaning gets conveyed (eventually LOL) despite the "operational limitations".

Utterly untrained and inexperienced newbs may of course benefit from being presented with a few genuinely salutary examples of unsympathetic native-induced confusion (but where would we find them? I'm guessing not much if at all in the basic training literature!), but why hold teachers responsible for the sins of "omission" or indeed inclusion of the native language (it is after all a resource that serves certainly its native speakers very well on the whole)? Or is it really our job to proselytize to native corporate heads about the joys of unbridled EIL versus the stupidity and folly otherwise, somewhat biting the hand that feeds us?