I recently had a discussion with my daughter. She studies English and it 
was about English as lingua franca. I said that if on a conference the 
language is 'English' that means that an international dialect is 
spoken, not any official version of it.
That leads to at least two points where we slightly disagreed then, 
(perhaps we are more in agreement here now)
- Also native speakers have learn to speak it. I have heard talks that 
were almost incomprehensible because the speaker liberally used the 
expressions and sport metaphors he also used at the dinner table.
- If a way of expression is commonly used that is not correct from a 
linguistic point of view, you don't have to start a campaign to correct 
that error. On the contrary, if you think it is wrong you are the one 
that is wrong. Perhaps not a good example but one that I remember: a 
Dutch politician talked about 'golden showers' to express how expensive 
the bathrooms in a new European headquarters were. Some people ridiculed 
him saying: what a fool he is for not knowing that golden showers mean 
something else (if you don't know what, stay ignorant). My POV: what a 
fool that commentator is for not knowing that in international English 
that expression does not exist, he is confusing 'international English' 
with 'standard English'.

I think that the main points where international English differs from 
standard English are:
- there is no literature and no history. You can e.g. not refer to 
Shakespeare as a common background.
- slang does not exist in international English. If every expression 
that has a different meaning somewhere in the English spoken world id 
forbideed, there is not much to say anymore.
- Never use words expressions that force people to use a dictionary. I 
should probably have not used 'lingua franca' above and the use of 
'liberally' was also questionable.
- Jargon, smileys, and common abbreviations are allowed in international 
communication. ASAP and IMHO are recognized by all. OTOH one should not 
use 'on the gripping hand'.
- It is not just dumbing down, I think that sentences can be longer in 
international English. Especially if the speaker/writer is German, Dutch 
or from any other nation that allows full page sentences.

Any opinions?

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Especially if the speaker/writer is German, Dutch
> or from any other nation that allows full page sentences.

Or full-line words :/

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> English as lingua franca.

I just want you to know how much this made me giggle.

> - Also native speakers have learn to speak it.

It takes a certain awareness. It doesn't take a lot of "learning" as much as 
it takes "paying attention to your metaphors". The more parochial you are, 
the more likely you are to mess things up.

> - If a way of expression is commonly used that is not correct from a 
> linguistic point of view, you don't have to start a campaign to correct 
> that error. On the contrary, if you think it is wrong you are the one 
> that is wrong. 

This is kind of true of all languages, if I understand what you mean.

> Perhaps not a good example but one that I remember: a 
> Dutch politician talked about 'golden showers' to express how expensive 
> the bathrooms in a new European headquarters were. Some people ridiculed 
> him saying: what a fool he is for not knowing that golden showers mean 
> something else (if you don't know what, stay ignorant). My POV: what a 
> fool that commentator is for not knowing that in international English 
> that expression does not exist, he is confusing 'international English' 
> with 'standard English'.

Well, I don't know what the expression means in Dutch, but it would seem to 
be a bit of an embarrassing mistake, assuming you get embarrassed by such 
mistakes.

> - there is no literature and no history. You can e.g. not refer to 
> Shakespeare as a common background.

I would imagine you can refer to history (either ancient or recent) or to 
recent literature (say, Star Wars comments, perhaps?)  Yes? No?

> - slang does not exist in international English. If every expression 
> that has a different meaning somewhere in the English spoken world id 
> forbideed, there is not much to say anymore.

True. Keep it simple. My wife still asks me questions about slang and 
idioms, even tho she's been speaking English fluently for 20+ years.

> - Never use words expressions that force people to use a dictionary. I 
> should probably have not used 'lingua franca' above and the use of 
> 'liberally' was also questionable.

I think in writing it's not so bad, especially interactive writing like a 
newsgroup, where people can ask if it's unclear. In group speaking, you have 
to take care. I wrote most of my international English in highly technical 
places, so that may influence my thinking on this.

> - Jargon, smileys, and common abbreviations are allowed in international 
> communication. ASAP and IMHO are recognized by all. OTOH one should not 
> use 'on the gripping hand'.

That's because "on the gripping hand" comes from literature. :-)

> - It is not just dumbing down,

No. It's using a restricted range of expressions that are the most common.

> Any opinions?

Other things: Don't use sentences whose meaning depends on complex tenses of 
the verb. E.g., don't use a sentence where "I would have been X" means 
something different than "I would have X".

Also, when speaking, you don't have to speak slowly, but you do have to 
clearly separate the words. I've found that most non-native speakers 
understand *much* more easily if there's a distinct if brief break between 
words, so it's obvious where the word breaks are. It also helps me immensely 
when trying to understand a foreign language (of which I barely understand 
one, so ... :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

On 18-Jan-09 0:06, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> English as lingua franca.
> 
> I just want you to know how much this made me giggle.
> 
>> - Also native speakers have learn to speak it.
> 
> It takes a certain awareness. It doesn't take a lot of "learning" as 
> much as it takes "paying attention to your metaphors". The more 
> parochial you are, the more likely you are to mess things up.
> 
>> - If a way of expression is commonly used that is not correct from a 
>> linguistic point of view, you don't have to start a campaign to 
>> correct that error. On the contrary, if you think it is wrong you are 
>> the one that is wrong. 
> 
> This is kind of true of all languages, if I understand what you mean.

No, they might be qualified to judge errors in the usage of standard 
English, but they are not qualified to apply the same rules to 
international English. That would take as much sense as me pointing out 
that according to the Dutch rules for constructing sentences the English 
do it wrong. What confuses them is that both languages share a lot of 
words (most international ones come from the standard of course) and 
most of the syntax.

>> Perhaps not a good example but one that I remember: a Dutch politician 
>> talked about 'golden showers' to express how expensive the bathrooms 
>> in a new European headquarters were. Some people ridiculed him saying: 
>> what a fool he is for not knowing that golden showers mean something 
>> else (if you don't know what, stay ignorant). My POV: what a fool that 
>> commentator is for not knowing that in international English that 
>> expression does not exist, he is confusing 'international English' 
>> with 'standard English'.
> 
> Well, I don't know what the expression means in Dutch, but it would seem 
> to be a bit of an embarrassing mistake, assuming you get embarrassed by 
> such mistakes.

It doesn't mean anything in Dutch and my point is that it is not a 
mistake. People tend to think it is a mistake, but they are wrong. The 
only objection you could have is that there is another language where it 
does have a different meaning and that people who know that will be too 
occupied by that to listen to what you have to say.

>> - there is no literature and no history. You can e.g. not refer to 
>> Shakespeare as a common background.
> 
> I would imagine you can refer to history (either ancient or recent) or 
> to recent literature (say, Star Wars comments, perhaps?)  Yes? No?

I wouldn't refer to Star Wars in a talk at a conference. I have never 
see anybody do that and would frown if they did. Unless in a cartoon as 
the last slide if it gives a comment on the talk.

>> - slang does not exist in international English. If every expression 
>> that has a different meaning somewhere in the English spoken world id 
>> forbideed, there is not much to say anymore.
> 
> True. Keep it simple. My wife still asks me questions about slang and 
> idioms, even tho she's been speaking English fluently for 20+ years.
> 
>> - Never use words expressions that force people to use a dictionary. I 
>> should probably have not used 'lingua franca' above and the use of 
>> 'liberally' was also questionable.
> 
> I think in writing it's not so bad, especially interactive writing like 
> a newsgroup, where people can ask if it's unclear. In group speaking, 
> you have to take care. I wrote most of my international English in 
> highly technical places, so that may influence my thinking on this.

The context we were discussion was indeed Biomedical conferences ans such.

>> - Jargon, smileys, and common abbreviations are allowed in 
>> international communication. ASAP and IMHO are recognized by all. OTOH 
>> one should not use 'on the gripping hand'.
> 
> That's because "on the gripping hand" comes from literature. :-)

I know, and you know why I said it that way.

>> - It is not just dumbing down,
> 
> No. It's using a restricted range of expressions that are the most common.
> 
>> Any opinions?
> 
> Other things: Don't use sentences whose meaning depends on complex 
> tenses of the verb. E.g., don't use a sentence where "I would have been 
> X" means something different than "I would have X".
> 
> Also, when speaking, you don't have to speak slowly, but you do have to 
> clearly separate the words. I've found that most non-native speakers 
> understand *much* more easily if there's a distinct if brief break 
> between words, so it's obvious where the word breaks are. It also helps 
> me immensely when trying to understand a foreign language (of which I 
> barely understand one, so ... :-)

Dus   zal   ik   duidelijk   mijn   woorden   gescheiden   uitspreken.

;)

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> No, they might be qualified to judge errors in the usage of standard 
> English, but they are not qualified to apply the same rules to 
> international English.

I see what you mean. I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.

> It doesn't mean anything in Dutch and my point is that it is not a 
> mistake. People tend to think it is a mistake, but they are wrong. The 
> only objection you could have is that there is another language where it 
> does have a different meaning and that people who know that will be too 
> occupied by that to listen to what you have to say.

And that would be the mistake I'm referring to. A case of poor communication 
for no reason other than the mistake of not knowing the slang you wouldn't 
be expected to know anyway. Which is why I wouldn't be embarrassed by it.

> I wouldn't refer to Star Wars in a talk at a conference.

Not as anything more than a joke, no.

> The context we were discussion was indeed Biomedical conferences ans such.

Yep. I was agreeing. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
> Other things: Don't use sentences whose meaning depends on complex tenses of
> the verb. E.g., don't use a sentence where "I would have been X" means
> something different than "I would have X".

I guess I haven't had to worry about the distinction before.  What happens if
the difference between the two makes a difference?  In general terms, of
course, but this sounds difficult for native speakers to remember unless there
clear rules beyond "don't make it too complex."

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> It doesn't mean anything in Dutch and my point is that it is not a
> mistake. People tend to think it is a mistake, but they are wrong. The
> only objection you could have is that there is another language where it
> does have a different meaning and that people who know that will be too
> occupied by that to listen to what you have to say.

Indeed.  There was no mistake when our Sudanese friend told us his brother used
to molest him regularly.  It's perfectly correct in both dialects, only it
turns out people assume something entirely different in American English, as
opposed to the British English he learned.  In his words, "No, not the Michael
Jackson kind!"

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

On 18-Jan-09 21:30, triple_r wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> It doesn't mean anything in Dutch and my point is that it is not a
>> mistake. People tend to think it is a mistake, but they are wrong. The
>> only objection you could have is that there is another language where it
>> does have a different meaning and that people who know that will be too
>> occupied by that to listen to what you have to say.
> 
> Indeed.  There was no mistake when our Sudanese friend told us his brother used
> to molest him regularly.  It's perfectly correct in both dialects, only it
> turns out people assume something entirely different in American English, as
> opposed to the British English he learned.  In his words, "No, not the Michael
> Jackson kind!"
> 
>  - Ricky

I like that one. I might use it in future discussion with the daughter.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> - slang does not exist in international English.

English is da shiznit! :D

It's undoubtly the new latin, lingua franca of the internet indeed.

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Other things: Don't use sentences whose meaning depends on complex tenses of
>> the verb. E.g., don't use a sentence where "I would have been X" means
>> something different than "I would have X".
> 
> I guess I haven't had to worry about the distinction before.  What happens if
> the difference between the two makes a difference? 

You get confusion, is all.

I've just found that in my dealings with non-native speakers, subtle tense 
differences are not as well practiced as past-present-future.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message