C
Chris Uppal
Andrew said:
Disclosure: I speak British English as my first and only language[*].
I think there's rather a lot of assumptions built into that, and I don't find
them altogether convincing (although there clearly is /some/ truth in it).
Consider the needs of a reader ("R") of some bit of English text (whether the
reader is a native English speaker or not). There should be a "sweet spot"
where the writing is most comprehensible to R. If the writer ("W") uses a
wider vocabulary than R is used to seeing then that will make the text harder
to follow (but, who knows, R may like it like that -- /I/ do...). But, on the
other hand, too narrow a vocabulary makes it harder for R too: W may have to
use more words to explain things than R needs, for instance. Similarly there
should be a sweet spot for sentence structure -- to complex and it hinders R,
too simple and it doesn't convey enough information. Similarly again, there
is probably a sweet spot for wordiness -- too many words makes it more work for
R to follow, but too few words reduces redundancy in the text, and thus makes
it harder for R to correct for any misunderstandings.
In the extreme case, if W is sufficiently uncomfortable in English then s/he
may miss important stuff out if it's much effort to write it in English; or may
cause misunderstanding by using words in ways that conflict with how R uses
them.
What I don't see a convincing reason to expect is that one non-native English
speaker's English would be more likely to hit another non-native English
speaker's sweet spot. Even if everybody didn't have different levels (and
kinds) of skills -- which, of course, they /do/ -- I'm not convinced that
someone who writes at a given skill level will produce text that is most
readily understood by someone who reads at the same skill level. FWIW, I am
happiest reading English which has been written by someone with more skill than
I possess -- why should I expect anyone else to be different ?
Of course, a native English speaking W may use a wider vocabulary, a more
complex sentence structure, or just plain more words, than R is most
comfortable with. It seems reasonable that /if/ W misses R's sweet spot, then
an English W will usually miss high (too complex, etc). But I'm not convinced
that a native English W is inherently more like to miss, or is likely to miss
by more, than an non-native W.
(BTW: None of the above should be taken as suggesting that I think my own
witterings here hit anyone's sweet spot -- English-native or otherwise -- nor
that they are even intended to do so.)
The only /inherent/ advantage that a non-native W would have (that I can think
of) is that they might be in a much better position to know if some English
construction was likely to confuse or mislead another non-native speaker. For
instance the English word "inflammable" is potentially misleading[**] it
doesn't break down as "in" + "flammable", meaning NOT flammable, as someone who
wasn't familiar with that /specific/ word would probably expect. That
potential for confusion would probably never occurr to a native English speaker
(it didn't occurr to me -- I found the example in a book).
-- chris
[*] The British Schooling System did attempt to teach me French. Which, as
anyone familiar with the British Schooling System will instantly guess, means
that I cannot in fact read, write, speak, or understand French :-(
[**] Dangerously so, which is why using the word "inflammable" on public
warning signs is inexcusable ;-)
