Teacher Discussion Forums

Here's a seven-year-old article by Barbara Wallraff that has interesting points:

http://ml.hss.cmu.edu/courses/mjwest/Wh ... nguage.htm

English isn't managing to sweep all else before it -- and if it ever does become the universal language, many of those who speak it won't understand one another

No surprise here.

I do translation here in China part time, and so have met plenty of professional translators working in varous languages. I used to translate professionally in Canada likewise, from French to English.

Among translators both in Canada and China, the greatest criticisms against English are:

1. Its lack of a universally recognized standard, which is a real headache for any translator, human or otherwise. This is main focus of criticism.

2. Its lack of precision. English is not the most precise of languages, which results in confusin when the translator must then translate text from English to a more precise language. Needless to say, it's easier to translate to than from English as a result, as long as one knows what dialect to translate to.

3. Its obstacles to mastery. The sheer number of exceptions to the rules, dialects, spelling irregularities, non-transparent expressions, etc., produces a large number of non-native translators whom most would consider, though the best among multitudes of candidates, not sufficiently competent for the job. And this applies even in Quebec city!

When translating professionally, I have no choice but to follow protocol, often established by some monolingual manager who knows zilch about the complexities of translation! This is common both in Canada and China.

Yet when I'm translating freelance, I'll often bypass English by looking for other competent translators to an easier and/or more precise language from which we native speakers can then translate into English. This relay translation is often, surprisingly enough, not only more accurate, but also less time consuming, than direct translation into or from English.

One challenge with such translation methods is to find translators who have in fact botheres to learn these languages. Two popular bridge languages of the sort that I've come across in China are French (more grammatically precise than English) and Esperanto (more grammatically precise and much easier to learn than English). The challenge with French, though, is that many are not fuly competent in French either. And with Esperanto, while most are quite competent in it, is not so widely spoken. As for other languages, I don't know them sufficienly enough for professional translation, either freelance or full-time; though I'm sure others may have experimented with other strategies as well, depending on the languages they happen to know.

And this is the reality of English in the translation industry, at least in Canada and China.

I've done interpretation in both Canada and China likewise, and generally follow the same principles as with translation when possible, but it's usually not possible except under ideal circumstances. But I have run into some funny scenarios.

In one case, in Montreal, I was interpreting as a volunteer for a non-profit organization as the topic of conversation for that evening centred around the purchase equipment for simultaneous interpretation at high cost, since everyone found consecutive interpretation to be time consuming and inefficient.

The English speaers were generally in favour, while the French speakers argued that the English speakers ought to ust learn French. ONe English speaker defended himself saying that he was trying, but that French is not easy. So the French speakers signalled to me so stop interpreting, which I did, and then switched to Englihs himself, called the English sepaekr a Nazi, and insisted that it's not up to the locals to spend all their money to accommodate 'foreigners' language difficulties. The English speaker just sat there, dumbfounded, and I was just happpy to not have had to interpret that!

On another occasion in China, I was a guest speaker at a meeting (I was not expecting to have to serve as, hummm, 'interpreter'?). The interpreter, recently graduated from university, faced, for the first time in her life, not just American and British cassette tapes, but an Australian, a Cameroonian, a Swede, a Pakistani, and me, a Canadian.

We soon found that the only accent she could understand in the beginning was mine! So I'd repeat for the others. Gradually, she'd gotten a hang of the Aussie and Swedish accents, and about 20 minutes later, the Cameroonian one. She'd not been able to understand the Pakistani right till the end! And since the topic revolved around language issues, there were many socio-linguistic terms she was unfamiliar with. As it turned out, a Chinese friend of mine in the room knew Esperanto, and was well-versed in such vocabulary, and so I'd switched to that on occasion, repeating myself in English for the English crowd, while my friend interpreted into Chinese for the Chiense crowd. This whole meeting was a real Babel in action!

Anyway, these are just some of my observations of English as a Babel of a language.

2. Its lack of precision. English is not the most precise of languages, which results in confusin when the translator must then translate text from English to a more precise language. Needless to say, it's easier to translate to than from English as a result, as long as one knows what dialect to translate to.

Can you give us a few examples of precision in one or two of those languages and show us how English is imprecise, or less precise, with the same examples?

And, what is your first language, your mother tongue?

The sheer number of exceptions to the rules,

Again could you provide more than a handful of examples of such exceptions? I'm a native-speaking teacher of English and haven't noticed many exceptions.

Yes, I know English has probably the most exceptions of any language. It has rules, to be sure, and then breaks those rules the most — notably in spelling versus pronunciation, such as the i before e rule.
I take issue with your assertion that English is imprecise. I used to think that certain languages could be rated and placed on a precision continuum, but I've since changed my thinking on that. I believe it is more a reflection of the population: when the general citizenry of a certain language group thinks logically, efficiently, professionally, and precisely about things, especially in their work, they'll say things that way, and the language will naturally evolve along those lines. I also think precision is an individual endeavor: English is just as precise as the speaker is skilled in making it so. To be sure, there are precise and imprecise English speakers just as there are Chinese speakers, but the balance may be tilted. And if speakers of a certain language tend to be imprecise, it's from following and being influenced by their culture and the people around them — the way they think and use the language accordingly — it isn't a reflection of the language itself.
On the other hand, I've heard that Latin is good to study because it is grammatically more strict than English, which causes Latin learners to write English more skillfully. But still, I generally don't see languages themselves as precise or imprecise. Grammatical strictness or complex structure may render the writers or speakers of that language more precise due to the discipline of paying attention to detail, but that precision can transfer to any language if that same mindset be maintained or embraced, even though fellow language speakers do no such thing.

Can you give us a few examples of precision in one or two of those languages and show us how English is imprecise, or less precise, with the same examples?

With pleasure. Bear in mind, though, that I'm not including prescriptive or 'style guide' English here, since then we would be comparing a particular artificial prescription of English, officially defined by a particular organization, rather than descriptive English (i.e. English as it is usually used in the real world). And remember that when a translator goes to another company, he has to learn all over again (though thankfully these manuals are often similar or even identical within the same English-speaking country; we're not alsways so lucky in non-English-speaking countries, each organization using various national standards.

Let's look at the word 'corn'. Now in one internal style manual I'd worked with, it's default meaning referred to callus on the foot, 'maize' or 'local grain' being the default selections for the other meanings of 'corn' (of course the translator could choose to ignore the recommended prescription at his own discretion, as long as the meaning is clear within context and that there is a good reason for him to ignore the prescription in a particular context). Here in China, most have never even heard of style manuals of any kind, and so have no standard to guide us. I remember having to edit an article dealing with the provincial corn industry. So is that maize or whatever the 'local grain' is? One might guess from context that it probably means 'maize' (as it did, and as I'd guessed initially), but I do not WANT to guess, I want to KNOW, especially since the translator was not a native speaker of English, our cultural backgrounds were different, I was expected to then translate the same article into French, I knew little about their industry, AND there were plenty of other errors in the text, causing me to lose confidence in the translator's ability!

Another article mentionned the elevator industry. Because 'corn' had been mentionned earlier, I'd guessed it must refer to 'grain elevators'. I was right, but again, still had to go to the other office, find the original translator, and confirm. After all, later in the article, the automotive and ABS industries were mentionned, so it could have been the 'wingtip elevator' industry for aeronotical companies, also distinct from the 'lift' industry that would serve a more urban clientelle, specially in highrise buildings!

And what about 'I just lost my keys' vs. 'I've just lost my keys'? In some national varieties of English, 'I just lost my keys' has but one meaning: 'I only lost my key, nothing more; don't worry about it. In other national varieties, it can be synonymous with 'I've just lost my keys', just now, just before you asked me what I was looking for.

Likewise, 'He likes me more than her' can now have the same meaning as 'He likes me more than she' in some national dialects, even in relatively formal contexts!

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Some languages are more clearly defined, the language itself, being prescribed by a higher international authority than the company, and generally respected as authoritative, resulting in little variety between translators, at least in formal settings. An example would be the French Academy, generally respectd in the FLE (French as a Foreign Language) industry worldwide. English has no such academy, resulting in the wide range of descriptivisms we have today.

Of course French has its dialects, but most educated Frrench peakers are capable of, and generally do, change to th e standard variety of the Academy Francaise, at least for international purposes. Esperanto likewise has the Academy of Esperanto. And as a matter of habit, both French and Esperanto tend to use attributives more cautiously than in English.

In English, to use attributives with the same level of care as we do in French or Esperanto, while possible, sometimes comes across as 'artificial' in appearance, even if perfectly grammatically correct and precise. In this case, stylistic considerations interfere with the translation, the translator being required to make a choice between style and precision. 'Maize' would be one example, sometimes coming across as odd when the word we're most used to in North America is 'corn'.

And, what is your first language, your mother tongue?

My mother tongues are English and French.

The sheer number of exceptions to the rules,

Again could you provide more than a handful of examples of such exceptions? I'm a native-speaking teacher of English and haven't noticed many exceptions.

Oh my! Where do you want me to start?
mice, geese, kine, read vs red, pronounced same. Ship and sheep are proninced the same likewise in many African dialects, along with all other -ee- vs. i sounds. Some Australians do not pronounce the ei in day, but ay, so that today sounds like to die.

So once we combine all the difficulties and dialects of the written language with the sheer variety of the spoken dialects, few students, even specialists in English, truly master them all. Even I have little knowledge of the subtleties of various dialects.

Consider likewise sources of conflict. British vs American '*beep*'! Not the same thing. And then we have archaisms and modernisms living side by side, such as ass. Is it an offensive word or not? Depends on how you use it.

If that doesn't suffice, let me know, and I'll throw more at ya.

I remember once a Briton shocked as he was editing a paper with 'ass' in it. The chief editor stated that I'd stated that it was fine in some cases. He looked at me in awe, unaware that there is in fact another meaning for the word 'ass' other than what he thought from TV. And he was a native speaker of English himself.

In another case, an American friend of mine preparing for a lesson was shocked to hear 'zed' on a cassette. Yes, it's zed, not zee. Or is it zee, not sed?

All of these traps hold students back from achieving truly native-like proficiency in the language. If it weren't so, the world would speak English by now.

jotham wrote: I take issue with your assertion that English is imprecise. I used to think that certain languages could be rated and placed on a precision continuum, but I've since changed my thinking on that. I believe it is more a reflection of the population: when the general citizenry of a certain language group thinks logically, efficiently, professionally, and precisely about things, especially in their work, they'll say things that way, and the language will naturally evolve along those lines. I also think precision is an individual endeavor: English is just as precise as the speaker is skilled in making it so. And if speakers of a certain language are imprecise, it's from following and being influenced by their culture and the people around them---the way they think and use the language accordingly---it isn't a reflection of the language itself.

As I'd mentionned in the post above relating to prescriptive vs. descriptive grammar, I wasn't criticizing the various prescriptive grammars. Bear in mind though that the cultural requirements to make English more precise are currently not in place. To make English more precise on an internaiotnal scale, we'd need to establish some kind of common officially recognized and respected standard. Politically, this would be a no go, sonce none could agree to a standard. Add to this a certain disdain for authority, especially in teh US, when dealing with cultural issues; one reason you still have not offical language in the US and the UK.

The cultrue itself defends a hand-off approach to Englihs, and descriptivism is definitely winning the day. Most teachers are more concerned with whether the diealogue tought in class is 'natural' sounding rather than 'precise'. Until this changes, descriptivism is here to stay, and will continue to undermine English as an efficient bridge language for translation purposes in a shrinking world.

The only way to remedy this would in fact be for English peoples to undergo a radical change of philosophy regarding the nature of English.

Oh, I catch your drift now. You're the one that's not being precise with English as you could be — don't blame the language . You mean an English that is unified across the board with similar vocabulary and grammar, which would help you translate precisely for any English speaker. Well, I guess I see why you'd think that being a translator or interpreter for a varied audience. (Which word do you use when the audience is American, British, and Australian?) I, myself, as an editor of English-teaching textbooks also find it burdensome keeping track of the many British and American differences so I'm careful not to declare something illegitimate English. I think you can just pick the dialect you're familiar with. I always advertise myself as a proficient American speaker, and I know American style really well. I probably would avoid positions that require primary proficiency in British English. But perhaps translation requires that you be fluent in all venues to be a real expert. Well, my hats off to you. If keeping track of all these pesky details help define the expert translator, then be expert.
I also wonder if any language were to rise up and become broadly spoken, wouldn't it be natural for dialects to spring up and counteract any advantage of previous unity? Chinese is by no means unified. Neither is Spanish. French is unified simply because it isn't broadly spoken: it isn't a lingua franca for many other people, including their former colonies, like Vietnam. Isn't there a difference in the spoken French of their African colonies? Surely they don't follow the academy. Moreover, French culture just isn't as influential as they think it should be, which explains their Nazi comments and behavior.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/24/news/chirac.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4840160.stm

jotham wrote: I also wonder if a language were to become broadly spoken, wouldn't dialects naturally spring up to counteract any semblance of previous unity? Chinese is by no means unified. Neither is Spanish. French is unified because it isn't a lingua franca for many other people, including their former colonies, like Vietnam. Isn't there a difference in the spoken French of their African colonies? Surely they don't follow the academy.

That's where the cultural differences creep in. If the people respect their Academy (a strange and rediculous concept in the English mind, perhaps viewed by some as somehow suffocating, or sacrificial of freedom and local identity), the language will remain at least relatively much more united than one that doesn't even have an academy.

If you speak to a Senegalese over the phone, even if he'd had local teachers all his life, there's a good chance you'll think he was raised in Paris. How many English-speakers would snicker at an American or a Chinese speaking in RP? They'd all laugh and view him as a snob!

American's are proud of their English. In Quebec, there are still some, nay many, who'll defend the Academy, though it be on another continent, regarding questions of formal use of the written language at least. In the US, such thoughts would be viewed as perhaps somewhat 'colonialist', and would certainly be derided.

The French Academy is generally respeced as a part of French culture, heritage, history. And la Francophonie could almost be called a people united by the common bond of language. In English countries, the idea of an English Academy has been shot down many times in the name of freedom.

In Esperanto, despite the small number of native speakers, the Akademio is perhaps even more respected than the Academie Francaise. This, again, helps maintian the unity of the commnity. Esperantujo is viewed as a close-knit cultural communitity in its own right, with strong fraternal bonds across the board.

Chinese is united under Mandarin. Certainly there are dialects. But it's generally understood that formal documents are all in Putongua. In English, there is no one formal standard to assume, and many non-natives are not even aware of what standard (or even mixed standards) they are using (why learning one standard only at first could be beneficial, especially if it were part of a national policy). The Chinese (minority ethnic groups aside, of course) rally around Putonghua as the language of Chinese unity and modernizaiton. They recognize the need for a commmon standard, and that to ensure communication across the board, this standard must be maintained in all formal contexts to the best of one's ability. And they strive to meet this standard, the local dialect haply relegated to the realm of family relations.

Classical Arabic serves a similar role in the Arab world, along with the Goethe Institute, the Spanish Academy, etc, al in their respective countries.

I think the main problem with English is that #, culturally, there is no sense of a common muturlaly-respected standard to strive for. Historically, there was the King Japmes Bible. But who reads it anymore? Well, I do, along with some others, but it's not respected enough across the board anymore to truly preserve a standard. Different people have now adopted different standards, none common. In the end, it's a matter of changing the cultural perception of the language itself. But I don't think that will be so easy. So in the end, just switching language would probably be the path of least resistance.

And what about 'I just lost my keys' vs. 'I've just lost my keys'? In some national varieties of English, 'I just lost my keys' has but one meaning: 'I only lost my key, nothing more; don't worry about it. In other national varieties, it can be synonymous with 'I've just lost my keys', just now, just before you asked me what I was looking for.

The imprecision there seems to be based on taking things out of context.
Do "su casa" or "su coche" in Spanish mean his/her car or can it also mean your car? Does "Le doy de comer" mean I feed him / her/it], or can it also mean I feed you? The precision lies in the context and not in the individual words or sentences.

Taking single words, vos and tu refer to the same thing in Spanish, but Spanish speakers from different parts of the globe use either one or the other of those words. Where's the precision there?

And, as you seem to hail from Quebec, please tell me how you would translate the French word "franchise" to English.

Is the German verb haben (to have) a main verb or an auxiliary marker, here?

Mein Sohn hat einen alten VW Käfer ...

The list is endless. Ambiguity and imprecision reigns in many, many languages, but much can be resolved in context. The word "corn" will also reveal its "true" meaning in context.

I think that English is no more imprecise than the majority of major languages.

'Nazi' is obviously intended as provocative, and could even be viewed as offensive when comparing the childish sneer of a French president to the deaths caused by the Nazis. That having been said, I still understand your point.

When I said the Nazi comment, I was referring to your earlier story about the French official's irritation. You thought I was calling the comment itself Nazi-like, but I guess that works too...

If the French put their actions where their words stood, the world would certainly rally behind them...as long as the French hold to their past glories, they'll never get anywhere. And, ironically enough, this stubbornness on the part of the French is a major contributor to the growth of English.

The world doesn't rally behind countries because of mere intentions good or bad. Neither did France nor could France do anything to either hinder or help the growth of English. You're giving the French too much credit for something the English did all by themselves. English is dominant because of Anglo-American principles of capitalism and the free market with its ensuing prosperity. France and a good many European countries cling to their socialism as though it were superior to free markets; this German model predates Hitler, encouraged Hitler, and finally continued after Hitler. (There was a brief free-market period after the war.) In France, Sarkozy seems to be the first president that talks of embracing the free market, and we'll see how successful he is at implementing it, and how it affects and bolsters the status of France and French — just as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan's free-market revolution bolstered the status of Britain, America, and English.

Moreover, French culture just isn't as influential as they think it should be, which explains their Nazi comments and behavior.

Are you accusing the French of being Nazi?

English is dominant because of Anglo-American principles of capitalism and the free market with its ensuing prosperity.

!!! You believe that?

Are you accusing the French of being Nazi?

No, I'm not accusing them of being Nazi...although there sure wasn't much resistance to it at the time. Like I said earlier, when I said Nazi comment, I meant the comment the French official said about the English speaker not knowing French: he called him a Nazi. I refer to this comment as the "Nazi" comment. Then I added behavior because it seems they want to force French just because they're French and are apparently entitled to it by divine right, and not because it reflects market realities, or other objective factors. Gosh, lighten up — I'm not calling all French Nazi's. But Chirac's comment, and other comments about Poland, Hungary, and other Eastern countries needing to shut up about political decisions he disagrees with to ensure they get accepted in the Union — they seem a little Nazi-like to me; or at least not democratic. I am delighted to see the success of Sarkozy, who is first president to not graduate from their elitist school of snobs.
http://www.radio.cz/en/news/37707
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2774139.stm
I thought Great Britain was bad enough about being more class-conscious than the US, which explains and perhaps justifies their defense of descriptivism and backlash against the "King's" English. But the situation in France is much worse.

English is dominant because of Anglo-American principles of capitalism and the free market with its ensuing prosperity.
!!! You believe that?

I believe English is dominant because of our commerce, because of our movies, because of a spirit of excellence. This doesn't have to do with the fact that we are Anglo-Saxon. It has to do with the fact that free markets empower the common people to rise up and be the best. It works in any country given time. You are seeing the same things in pockets of the world, like Ireland recently, and Hong Kong, and Singapore. The rise of China can be attributed to aspects of capitalism in the big cities. Imagine the power unleashed by total free market all across China! But by and large, English speaking countries have embraced the free market for a much longer time than other Europeans or Asians. It goes centuries back. England produced Adam Smith a long time ago.
Make no mistake about it: Chirac balks at English being spoken because English represents free markets. French, on the other hand, represents protectionism and socialism — at least traditionally. It's their heritage and culture. (Hopefully Sarkozy will change that.)