# International English



## ceci '79

Hi everybody!  

I would like to hear your opinion about the controversial variety of English called "international English" (English as used a lingua franca for the world) and its particular subcategory "European English" (English as used a lingua franca for Europe -- the one I speak, if it exists).

Some of my questions are:

-- Is there such a thing as an independent "international English", or is it just (partially) incorrect, non-idiomatic English?

-- If yes, how to deal with its rise? Is it still important to insist that average foreign students learn regional (for example AE or BE) idioms and difficult phrasal verbs, that they avoid inauthentic literal loan translations most other foreigners would understand (e.g. _informatics_ for "information technology"), and so forth?

-- If not, (please, forgive my slight bias), isn't there a risk that the world will soon be divided into two linguistic tiers, the "natives" (who know the "real" lingua franca), and the "non-natives", who have no authority in the matter and are linguistically inferior? Doesn't this distinction create _de facto_ a small power elite?

I am asking these questions (and opening a more general debate) keeping in mind the ever-growing importance of the English language as a means of global communication. My opinion is that we can no longer afford to consider English as the language of "natives" and professional translators. It belongs more and more to all citizens of the world, and is becoming a common heritage of mankind. 

But I would like to know what you think. Thank you very much in advance.


----------



## french4beth

ceci '79 said:
			
		

> -- Is there such a thing as an independent "international English", or is it just (partially) incorrect, non-idiomatic English? *If this truly exists, who determines what "international English" is?*
> 
> -- If yes, how to deal with its rise? Is it still important to insist that average foreign students learn regional (for example AE or BE) idioms and difficult phrasal verbs, that they avoid inauthentic literal loan translations most other foreigners would understand (e.g. _informatics_ for "information technology"), and so forth? *I think that English should be taught to natives the same way that it always has been.*
> 
> -- If not, (please, forgive my slight bias), isn't there a risk that the world will soon be divided into two linguistic tiers, the "natives" (who know the "real" lingua franca), and the "non-natives", who have no authority in the matter and are linguistically inferior? Doesn't this distinction create _de facto_ a small power elite? *How could anyone possibly teach everyone around the world? I think we should just leave things as they are - there is enough strife & disagreement in the world today as it is!*


----------



## .   1

ceci '79 said:
			
		

> -- If not, (please, forgive my slight bias), isn't there a risk that the world will soon be divided into two linguistic tiers, the "natives" (who know the "real" lingua franca), and the "non-natives", who have no authority in the matter and are linguistically inferior? Doesn't this distinction create _de facto_ a small power elite?


 
This is the funny thing about English.
English is unique as a language in that it is not under threat from any other language.
The English speaking population is growing.
The percentage of English speakers is growing.
English is the language of Computers and Mass Media and Art.

There is no authority on English.
There is no Central Commission on English.

There is no Secret Language within English.
Those who try to use flash words or convoluted phrasing fail to communicate.

.,,


----------



## Moogey

Well, truthfully, pretty much all English speakers can understand each other all the time, even if certain phrases and words have different meanings. It's not like American English and British English, for example, are two different languages. I think that in schools people should be taught the language and styles of different English speaking regions... they're not so big in my opinion that they cannot be included in the classrooms.

-M


----------



## ceci '79

. said:
			
		

> This is the funny thing about English.
> English is unique as a language in that it is not under threat from any other language.
> The English speaking population is growing.
> The percentage of English speakers is growing.
> English is the language of Computers and Mass Media and Art.
> 
> There is no authority on English.
> There is no Central Commission on English.
> 
> _No, of course not, but the way English is taught as a second or foreign language abroad does influence the way millions of people use this language and maybe, ultimately, the language itself._
> 
> _I am not suggesting a uniform way of teaching English to foreigners - I am not that insane. But the development of didactics and teaching pedagogy is a conscious process and teachers have control over it. Therefore, a debate about teaching methods and contents ends up influencing the way English is taught abroad (luckily, I didn't learn English the way my grandfather did). _
> 
> There is no Secret Language within English.
> Those who try to use flash words or convoluted phrasing fail to communicate.
> 
> _What are you referring to?_
> 
> .,,


----------



## ceci '79

french4beth said:
			
		

> *If this truly exists, who determines what "international English" is? *


 
That was pretty much my initial question... Thank you, however, for reiterating it.



			
				french4beth said:
			
		

> *I think that English should be taught to natives the same way that it always has been.*


 
There must have been a misunderstanding. I was obviously talking about the way English is taught to _non-_natives, as a foreign language.



			
				french4beth said:
			
		

> *How could anyone possibly teach everyone around the world?*


 
I'm afraid I don't understand your question. What do you mean? I never suggested such an absurd idea!


----------



## Outsider

I had never heard about International English before. Can you tell us a little about how it differs from conventional forms of English?


----------



## sound shift

Well yes, native speakers of English can understand each other most of the time, but they have trouble with what 'ceci 79 calls "European English": a monolingual native speaker will not understand "sympathic", "abonnement" and their ilk. Continental Europeans may not encounter problems but the world is now small, and what they say or write will soon come to the attention of native speakers or speakers of a different variety of "international English", so some standardisation is required. The difference between AE and BE is often exaggerated; most "English" is common to both versions. For non-native speakers to learn these common parts and abandon "European English" would be a form of progress.


----------



## ceci '79

Outsider said:
			
		

> I had never heard about International English before. Can you tell us a little about how it differs from conventional forms of English?


 
I am not even sure it exists (which is why I asked your opinion, even simply based on experience, about its existence).  

Here is an introductory link. 

Once I read a survey (sorry, I cannot find it right now) according to which foreigners (i.e. non-native English speakers) employed by different international organizations where English is the official working language found Swedes easier to understand than Americans or Brits. For example, Swedes tended to avoid the use of phrasal verbs (using the Latin or Greek equivalent "long word" instead) and of obscure regional idioms. 

International English is influenced by several foreign languages. However, sometimes I doubt its existence. Perhaps it is more correct to refer to many regional varieties of international English (I made the example of European English). I only speak Indo-European languages, however, so I have no way to investigate this (and I have not yet come across any literature about it). 

I was just curious...


----------



## ceci '79

sound shift said:
			
		

> Well yes, native speakers of English can understand each other most of the time, but they have trouble with what 'ceci 79 calls "European English": a monolingual native speaker will not understand "sympathic", "abonnement" and their ilk. Continental Europeans may not encounter problems but the world is now small, and what they say or write will soon come to the attention of native speakers or speakers of a different variety of "international English", so some standardisation is required. The difference between AE and BE is often exaggerated; most "English" is common to both versions. For non-native speakers to learn these common parts and abandon "European English" would be a form of progress.


 
You make an excellent point and I partially agree with you.

Still, couldn't words like _sympathic_ be a sign that other languages are influencing English the same way English is influencing them, through the ever-growing interaction of native and non-native English speakers?

Or am I being too relativistic now?


----------



## .   1

ceci '79 said:
			
		

> You make an excellent point and I partially agree with you.
> 
> Still, couldn't words like _sympathic_ be a sign that other languages are influencing English the same way English is influencing them, through the ever-growing interaction of native and non-native English speakers?
> 
> Or am I being too relativistic now?


English is taking and using words from other languages with gay abandon. and this is one of the many strengths of the language.
French people and Italian people and Greek people and African People must trip over familiar words all the time.

.,,


----------



## .   1

G'day ceci
I was refuting your inference that 





> (who know the "real" lingua franca)


 would be valued more than others.

Now that I know that this is a debate about teaching methods I will be able to respond with more lucidity.

.,,


----------



## Elibennet

I suggest that you visit the web site of The British Council and read "The Future of English" There they don´t speak about English but Englishes. It´s an excellent document for all those who are interested in "What English!"


----------



## ceci '79

. said:
			
		

> G'day ceci
> I was refuting your inference that would be valued more than others.
> 
> Now that I know that this is a debate about teaching methods I will be able to respond with more lucidity.
> 
> .,,


 
I understand, thank you very much.

My second question has always been about teaching. Today, ESL learners spend considerable amounts of time and energy trying to memorize a huge number of phrasal verbs. This practice is normally justified by the assertion that phrasal verbs are "more authentic" and "stylistically preferable" to longer, polysyllabic words with a Latin/French or Greek origin (that are often perceived as "heavy and cumbersome" by the natives). The same thing happens with idiomatic expressions. Not even syntax is immune from this phenomenon. Numerous teachers and texts warn the learner against the many horrors of a complex, syntactic style, encouraging them to use the synthetic and paratactic prose "preferred by the natives". This made sense when the objective of the average learner of English was to approach "native speaker level" as closely as possible in order to communicate with native speakers while living or travelling in Anglophone countries. Now, in this day and age of global mobility and communication, I find this objective and its usefulness to be rather questionable and dated. 

Nowadays, the fact that a word or expression is preferred by the natives does not make it necessarily better. For the average learner (who is not a translator or an immigrant living in an English-speaking country), the best choice is the one that offers the best global communicative results with the minimum learning effort, not the one that sounds most pleasing to the native’s ear.

As of my inference, I was specifically suggesting that native speakers of English still detain a somewhat normative authority over the use of the English language, a language that also millions of non-native speakers are _de facto_ forced to use on a daily basis. In my opinion, this situation is going to be less and less sustainable as time goes by. I am not particularly fond of this word, but if (hypothetically) millions of speakers around the word used and understood the term _sympatic_ in the sense of "nice", "friendly", who is an American or an Englishman to say that it is improper? 

I apologize if my arguments are false fabrications. It is not intentional. In that case, please, point it out. I am merely trying to understand a phenomenon that interests (and bothers) me, but that I am not very familiar with. Thank you for your patience.

Ceci  

EDIT: This problem becomes crucial with regard to academic assessment. Certain native-based norms are still employed to make judgements, and thus certain power is exercised. So the point here is that, although many teachers may work hard for an English as an international language, rarely do they have the same attitudes towards academic assessment, which defeats their purpose.


----------



## ceci '79

Elibennet said:
			
		

> I suggest that you visit the web site of The British Council and read "The Future of English" There they don´t speak about English but Englishes. It´s an excellent document for all those who are interested in "What English!"


 
Thank you very much!  

Ceci


----------



## .   1

ceci '79 said:
			
		

> As of my inference, I was specifically suggesting that native speakers of English still detain a somewhat normative authority over the use of the English language, ... but if (hypothetically) millions of speakers around the word used and understood the term _sympatic_ in the sense of "nice", "friendly", who is an American or an Englishman to say that it is improper?
> 
> I apologize if my arguments are false fabrications. It is not intentional. In that case, please, point it out. I am merely trying to understand a phenomenon that interests (and bothers) me, but that I am not very familiar with. Thank you for your patience.


 
I had to consult my dictionary with regards to normative and now that I know what that word means all I can offer is my empathy but how else do you consider such a process should run.

Sympatic looks and sounds to be a perfectly wonderful word and the sooner it replaces the bland nice the happier I will be.

The problem is that the word will not be accepted until it is used often enough. If it is valid it will survive but if not it will go the way of thousands of similar words.

I have a small doubt as to the survival of sympatic due to the close resemblance to sympathy and this is a concept that many English speakers feel uncomfortable expressing.

.,,
Long live the living language.


----------



## danielfranco

I just thought of the perfect definition of international English: The kind of English NOT spoken in Texas!
No, but seriously, I think that as long as the USA holds sway in the world economy (however dwindling the influence, the USA still manages to rock the boat whenever it wants to) the "international" English will be full of Americansisms and USA idioms (much like the dreaded phrasal verbs). Perhaps when the EU or China gain their ascendancy, then the "international" English will be the one spoken more commonly by their peoples...
Well, pard', we'll see, I guess...


----------



## natasha2000

The way that International English is described here in this thread, I would say it is wrong English. Sympathic does not exist in English. Informatics does not exist.
Yes, if A Spaniard tells to a German that he studies "informatics" the German will understand him, but this does not mean they speak correct English. I wouldn't go so far and give a life ow its own to that kind of speech. It is ok if it makes two people to understand each other, but make no mistake: it is not correct English. The correct English is the English spoken in English speaking countries. Nothing more, nothing less. And it is rich of diversities and varieties enough so we do not need to invent some other English. This existing one will do.


----------



## Confused Linguist

Those who care about English will do their best to use it like a native speaker. There is no such thing as "International English" even though the term is used quite frequently in the media to denote non-native varieties of English.


----------



## natasha2000

Confused Linguist said:
			
		

> Those who care about English will do their best to use it like a native speaker. There is no such thing as "International English" even though the term is used quite frequently in the media to denote non-native varieties of English.


 
Exactly. And it is just as you said - non-native version of English. It is NOT another language, nor equaly valid English, since there are also many variants of it - depending on the nationality of a speaker, who puts all kinds of irregularities from their own language.


----------



## sound shift

I recently read of a company in Thailand deciding to do business with a French company rather than a British company because the Thais had more difficulty understanding the English used by the British company than it did that used by the French company. I'm not altogether surprised - we British (and the English in particular) often speak sloppily . So it seems that "European English" (if that is what the French company used) can be an asset, or is it simply that speakers of Thai, which is not a stress-timed language as far as I know, find English easier to understand when it is spoken by people whose native language is not stress-timed either?


----------



## natasha2000

sound shift said:
			
		

> I recently read of a company in Thailand deciding to do business with a French company rather than a British company because the Thais had more difficulty understanding the English used by the British company than it did that used by the French company. I'm not altogether surprised - we British (and the English in particular) often speak sloppily . So it seems that "European English" (if that is what the French company used) can be an asset, or is it simply that speakers of Thai, which is not a stress-timed language as far as I know, find English easier to understand when it is spoken by people whose native language is not stress-timed either?


 
Well, my experience is completely opposite. My boss and his colleagues (dentists) from all over the world (Korean, Japanese, Israeli, etc), all of them do speak English, but sometimes I really do have problems to understand them, due to their wrong pronunciation of some words, and due to simple passing the words from their native language to English. Sometimes, when my boss is speaking English (or writing it) I can recognize the which word or construction he wanted to use just because I speak Spanish. 
On the other hand, when I speak with some doctor from English speaking country, I have no problem, whatsoever.

The same goes when I have to translate something from English to Spanish... Sometimes it is really hard to figure it out what the sentence (or even the whole parragraph) means. 

I prefer to talk to a native speaker than to non-native speaker with intermediate knowledge. For me it is easier to understand.

PS: Once, a Korean doctor came to our laboratory to explain some new invention of his to us. I was there "just in case" (to translate something if necessary). The curious thing is that our technician understood him perfectly, and I and another doctor who speaks Enlgish very well, couldn't grasp nothing. Not even the slightest idea what he was talking about. And the technician had to "translate" to us!


----------



## ceci '79

Confused Linguist said:
			
		

> Those who care about English will do their best to use it like a native speaker. There is no such thing as "International English" even though the term is used quite frequently in the media to denote non-native varieties of English.


 
So something that is spoken by millions of people worldwide "does not exist"?

It is a pretty widespread phenomenon for being something that does not exist.

Perhpas (probably?) it does not exists as a unified phenomenon, but asserting its absolute nonexistence is rather daring...


----------



## natasha2000

ceci '79 said:
			
		

> So something that is spoken by million of people worldwide "does not exist"?
> 
> It is a pretty widespread phenomenon for being something that does not exist.


 
Does International Spanish exist?
Does International German exist?
Does International French exist?

They are all languages that are also very much spread as a second language in the world, and I am sure that non-native speakers of French or Spanish do the same with those languages as two non-native speakers of English.

This just would be affirming the existence of something that is WRONG.
You cannot say informatics in English! You just simply CANNOT!


----------



## maxiogee

sound shift said:
			
		

> I recently read of a company in Thailand deciding to do business with a French company rather than a British company because the Thais had more difficulty understanding the English used by the British company than it did that used by the French company. I'm not altogether surprised - we British (and the English in particular) often speak sloppily



Was "sloppy" English the cause of the difficulty?
Might it be that the British English was too formal and stilted, whereas the French might have been more lax about their approach?


----------



## ceci '79

. said:
			
		

> I had to consult my dictionary with regards to normative and now that I know what that word means all I can offer is my empathy but how else do you consider such a process should run.


 
 Yet another cumbersome polysyllabic Latin word used by a European...

Well, obviously the development of language is a process that cannot be "run." I agree with you.

But attitudes towards what is "right" and "wrong", what is "acceptable" and "unacceptable", can change overtime, also as a consequence of public debate and discussion. And, when something is commonly perceived as more acceptable, more people are normally inclined and willing to adopt it and use themselves.

So, debate and discussion can ultimately (although extremely slowly) influence the development of language. Or maybe I just like to think so...  



			
				. said:
			
		

> Sympatic looks and sounds to be a perfectly wonderful word and the sooner it replaces the bland nice the happier I will be.
> 
> The problem is that the word will not be accepted until it is used often enough. If it is valid it will survive but if not it will go the way of thousands of similar words.


 
Absolutely.

But it could also be true that the word is not used enough because ESL teachers inhibit its use through their prescriptive and regulatory action.

As I wrote, this prescriptive and regulatory action is most evident and becomes most crucial at the time of grading and assessing the learner's language (the word "sympatic" is "wrong" and you get a bad mark for it, so you avoid it like the plague. Then, as the years go by, you continue avoiding it like the plague even if no bad grade would any longer result from its use).

Example: Once upon a time in high school my Irish teacher marked the word "proteiform", which I had used in an essay, as wrong. She decided it was wrong just because she did not know it. A less stubborn student might have believed her assessment and would still be avoiding that term, branding it as "nonexistent" and "wrong."



			
				. said:
			
		

> Long live the living language.


 
Hear, hear!   

In conclusion, how can any word, idiom or structure originating from a non-native region ever gain widespread use, if ESL teachers abroad continue to inhibit their adoption? In my opinion, marking as "wrong" anything that is not used by natives is inhibiting the development of non-native English (or Englishes) and it constitutes one of the main obstacles to its diffusion.


----------



## ceci '79

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Was "sloppy" English the cause of the difficulty?
> Might it be that the British English was too formal and stilted, whereas the French might have been more lax about their approach?


 
I think phrasal verbs and idioms are a huge problem in these situations.


----------



## natasha2000

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Was "sloppy" English the cause of the difficulty?
> Might it be that the British English was too formal and stilted, whereas the French might have been more lax about their approach?


 
I think it was the problem with "native" British accent. Here, in Spain, people have the same problem, too. Not once I heard from a Spaniard how terrified he/she is when it comes to speak on the phone with the USA or with the UK....


----------



## ceci '79

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> This just would be affirming the existence of something that is WRONG.
> You cannot say informatics in English! You just simply CANNOT!


 
Are you going to fine me if I do? 

Besides, sometimes we _have to_ affirm the existence of wrong things. Murded is wrong, but it exists. The word "elefant" is wrong in English, but it still exists (I just wrote it).

Just joking... What is existence, after all?


----------



## natasha2000

ceci '79 said:
			
		

> I think phrasal verbs and idioms are a huge problem in these situations.


 
Yes, especially when one must speak to an American... They use it a lot more than BE speakers...


----------



## natasha2000

ceci '79 said:
			
		

> Are you going to fine me if I do?


 
No, Ceci, no, of course not!

If you want just to make a communication with another person, it's ok. Nobody said you must speak perfectly in order to make friends. In many cases, it is an advantage, as we already saw it.

But, if you are about to do something "official" let's say, to write a book, than you have to speak correct English (or whatever language), not that International one. Recently, I came accross to something I could hardly believe.
I was translating to Spanish an English version of a book of that Korean friend of my boss. The English version was supposed to be ok and ready to be printed (what a mistake!). Can you imagine my surprise when I came accross to this kind of a statement: 

A patient can be sometimes a real pain in the ass.... 

It was like... Should I die of laugh or of shame?


----------



## ceci '79

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> No, Ceci, no, of course not!
> 
> If you want just to make a communication with another person, it's ok. Nobody said you must speak perfectly in order to make friends. In many cases, it is an advantage, as we already saw it.
> 
> But, if you are about to do something "official" let's say, to write a book, you have to speak than correct English (or whatever language), not that International one. Recently, I came accross to something I hardly could believe.
> I was translating to Spanish an English version of a book of that Korean friend of my boss. The English version was supposed to be ok and ready to be printed (what a mistake!). Can you imagine my surprise when I came accross to this kind of a statement:
> 
> A patient can be sometimes a real pain in the ass....
> 
> It was like... Should I die of laugh or of shame?


 
 That was funny.

But this was a problem of register and style, rather than of grammar and English usage. If that author were to write the same statement in his own native language, it would still be inappropriate for academic use.


----------



## natasha2000

ceci '79 said:
			
		

> That was funny.
> 
> But this was a problem of register and style, rather than of grammar and English usage. If that author were to write the same statement in his own native language, it would still be inappropriate for academic use.


 
Well, I could give you many examples from his book of a "good" grammar he uses... Sometimes, there were sentences that I couldn't get neither the head nor tail of it... And guess who helped me? My boss, whose English is far worse than mine. But being of the same profession, and with that super International English of his, most of these "mesess" were solved...

But, you're right, here's the question of style, but you know what? He didn't know the other way to say it. It is as simple as that. Later, when I spoke to him, he was emabarrased, and accepted my version at once. but he didn't know how to say it in another way.


----------



## badgrammar

Interesting subject, and here I will be speaking both from my experience as a translator and from my total ignorance about what international English, _really_ means.

I imagine two kinds of "international ENglish": 

The first is the basic ENglish spoken by non-native ENglish speakers around the world.  The guy from Prague who has a basic conversation with the guy from Delhi for example:

- Hello, I look for bus please?  I go to city...
- okay, bus, no bus here, must go village.
- No bus? Okay, I go village where?
- You go village next here, go left.
- Okay, thank you, very nice, bye bye

In this situation, because both parties have a very basic command of English, the exchange is simplified.  A lot of people communicate everyday in a very basic English that I would qualify as "International".  Everybody understands it.  Imagine instead our man from Prague runs into a native ENglish speaker:

- Hello, I look for bus please?  I go to city...
- Huh, what ? Oh you're looking for the bus? You know I don't think there's any bus that comes by here today, you'd have to go to the village over to find a bus into the city.
- Huh, what ?  No bus? Okay, I go where?
- Alright, it's the next village over, you go down there and turn left, then you go about a 1/4 till you get to the crossroads....
- Huh, what ?

The second kind of international ENglish I would define is that used in writing any kind of document or discourse that is intended to reach an international audience, meaning both native speakers and non-native speakers.  Depending on the level of English the target group is supposed to speak.  For example, if it's for employees of 'Dill" computers, then you can use a higher  level of English than if it's a brochure for tourists, whose level may be anywhere from excellent to quasi-non-existent.

Basically, in either case, you avoid long, complicated sentences.  You keep it short and sweet.  Whenever possible, you avoid using "big" words.  You avoid using obscure words.  You avoid idiomatic expressions (aside from the most familiar).  You avoid culturally-dependent references.  And finally, you choose your dictionary and stick with it (I automatically write with US English spelling if someone asks for "International English", and does not have a preference for BE spelling).

Sorry, that was long!


----------



## modus.irrealis

sound shift said:
			
		

> I recently read of a company in Thailand deciding to do business with a French company rather than a British company because the Thais had more difficulty understanding the English used by the British company than it did that used by the French company. I'm not altogether surprised - we British (and the English in particular) often speak sloppily . So it seems that "European English" (if that is what the French company used) can be an asset, or is it simply that speakers of Thai, which is not a stress-timed language as far as I know, find English easier to understand when it is spoken by people whose native language is not stress-timed either?


That reminds me of a summer job I once had at a factory where most of the workers spoke broken English, but were of various backgrounds (mostly southern European). The weird thing is I had trouble understanding their English but among each other, there didn't seem to be any problems. It's possible they were speaking an International English that was really a souther European type language with English words.

But I doubt that applies to your case, because I assume international companies will not be speaking broken English, but maybe you're onto something about the way languages are spoken. I wonder how many non-native speakers learn English from non-native speakers so that their exposure to native English pronunciation is very low. Since English has a pronunciation that seems distinct from other major languages (heavy-stress like you mention, very few cardinal vowels, etc.) that English pronunciation is hard for non-natives to decode, so that English pronounced in a non-English accent might be easier to understand.


----------



## ceci '79

badgrammar, I found your post very interesting. Thank you!

So far, I am completely ignorant about the true existence, meaning and nature of "international English" as well. I just use the expression as a temporarily label, waiting for a decent definition.  

First of all, I totally agree with your analysis of the two kinds of IE.




			
				badgrammar said:
			
		

> The second kind of international English I would define is that used in writing any kind of document or discourse that is intended to reach an international audience, meaning both native speakers and non-native speakers. Depending on the level of English the target group is supposed to speak. For example, if it's for employees of 'Dill" computers, then you can use a higher level of English than if it's a brochure for tourists, whose level may be anywhere from excellent to quasi-non-existent.


 
However, I can easily imagine a third kind of IE, the one used by non-native, non-translator professionals (such as a French doctor, lawyer, history professor, businessman, university student, and so forth), when interacting directly (both in speech and in writing) with their international colleagues. 

Often, these educated speakers don't make obvious mistakes, but natives tend to criticize them and to question their command of English. Maybe they are frowned upon because they use long, complex sentences, maybe because they choose some long or obsolete Latin words, or perhaps because they use a literal or original circumlocution instead of a common idiom.

Their style is considered "bad" by teachers and proofreaders and is often corrected. 

Why? What makes a particular style good or bad? Who is allowed to coin new metaphors and idioms? Only natives have this license?

In my post #26 I made the example of the word _proteiform _used as "ever-changing", "mutable."

The Greek sea-god Proteus could change his shape to avoid having to foretell the future. He would answer only to someone who was capable of capturing him. From this feature of Proteus come the adjectives *protean *("versatile", "mutable", "capable of assuming many forms". "adaptable") and _*proteiform *_(used mainly in zoology to indicate a life form that is changeable in shape; resembling a _Proteus_, or an amoeba).

If for instance a non-native literature student chose to be a little creative and to describe an inanimate entity or an abstract concept as "proteiform" in order to create a metaphoric effect (e.g. "XY's prose is proteiform and adaptable"), he would probably be immediately corrected by an English teacher. 

Many ESL teachers and lecturers are under the misconception that only natives are "authorized" to create new metaphors or idioms and to play with the language in a creative way. But why? There are countless natives who use the English language on a daily basis. Why aren't they allowed to "own the language" the same way natives are?

The movie _Lord of War_ with Nicholas Cage has two great examples of this. When dealing with an African warlord, Cage's character corrects his English twice, suggesting a common idiom instead. The problem is that the warlord had intentionally used a new, personal expression to fulfill his individual communicative needs. If he had been a native speaker, he would not have been corrected. Unfortunately, I forget the examples in question, but it was something along this line (made-up example):

-I have an ache in my heart.
-We say "I have a heartache."
-Yes, I know, but I prefer it that way.

In conclusion, natives are allowed to express themselves individually and creatively at a much greater extent than non-native speakers. This happens in all languages, but is particularly important in English because the English language has become a global language that million of speakers are _de facto_ forced to use on a daily basis all around the world (if they want to achieve anything in life).

Probably, I would suggest that IE is the English that is being creatively elaborated by native and non-native speakers since the recent boom in global communication. I think it should be granted more dignity by the educational and publishing establishment.

Sorry, this was longer than long!


----------



## badgrammar

I have the dvd of War of Lords, just waiting for me to find an evening to atch it! I  will be sure to pick up on those moments when he tries to correct the guy.  

You are right, I have seen cases of non-native speakers being "corrected" when, in fact, what they said would have been considered just a different way of saying things if they were a native speaker.  And sometimes when I play around with French, I get corrected the same way.


----------



## maxiogee

I think it is normal for a speaker of X to assume that a native-speaker they are conversing with means what they appear to mean when they say "qwerty uiop asdf ghjkl". It is also normal to assume that when a non-native says "qwerty uiop asdf ghjkl" — and there is a native phrase ("qwerty asdf uiop ghjkl") which resembles it — then it is possibe that the non-native _might_ be mistaken. The problem is in doing what Nicholas Cage's character does - correcting the 'error' without first checking that it is an _error_.


----------



## Elibennet

Confused Linguist said:
			
		

> Those who care about English will do their best to use it like a native speaker. There is no such thing as "International English" even though the term is used quite frequently in the media to denote non-native varieties of English.



What native speaker? English? Welsh? Scottish? Indian? Southafrican? Australian? 
What is right and what is wrong in a language that changes all the time? ANSWER: the language spoken by the powerful is right, whatever deviates from there is wrong.


----------



## maxiogee

Elibennet said:
			
		

> What is right and what is wrong in a language that changes all the time? ANSWER: the language spoken by the powerful is right, whatever deviates from there is wrong.



That is not true with English. I'd like to see your evidence.

What communicates is what is right - what communicates effectively is even more right, and what communicates most effectively is most correct.

This means that if the 'powerful' decree that it is incorrect to say "perfume", but correct to say "scent" and if the people in everyday usage say "perfume", then perfume is correct.
English has no Academie issuing dictats.


----------



## french4beth

Elibennet said:
			
		

> What is right and what is wrong in a language that changes all the time? ANSWER: the language spoken by the powerful is right, whatever deviates from there is wrong.


Definitely have to disagree.  American English is chock-full of expressions that came from AAVE (African American Vernacular English). I'm sure you've heard the following words: banana, bogus (fake), cool, dig (understand), hip (aware), jive, etc.


----------



## sound shift

There's been some talk in this thread of phrasal verbs getting in the way of communication, as if they were some idiosyncratic, fringe, part of the language, on a par with slang, that could easily be expunged. This is not true at all - they are an integral part of English. The other West Germanic languages (Frisian, Dutch, German) possess them too. Communication is better than failure to communicate, but native speakers of English are incapable of giving them up and nor should they be expected to.


----------



## natasha2000

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> I wonder how many non-native speakers learn English from non-native speakers so that their exposure to native English pronunciation is very low. Since English has a pronunciation that seems distinct from other major languages (heavy-stress like you mention, very few cardinal vowels, etc.) that English pronunciation is hard for non-natives to decode, so that English pronounced in a non-English accent might be easier to understand.


 
Exposure is very important, yes, but....
It is not about teachers, it's about movies!  Really, I am not joking. Look, in Serbia, thare are no native teachers, but we don't dub movies, so we are forced to listen to English at least one hour a day. We all have more or less good accent, and all of us are more comfortable speaking with native speakers than to someone who speaks as you call it, "broken" English.
In Spain, there are a lot of native teachers, but they dub their movies. The only Spaniards I met that speak good Engish and do not have a terrible fear when speaking to natives are those who lived in English speaking country.


----------



## natasha2000

sound shift said:
			
		

> There's been some talk in this thread of phrasal verbs getting in the way of communication, as if they were some idiosyncratic, fringe, part of the language, on a par with slang, that could easily be expunged. This is not true at all - they are an integral part of English. The other West Germanic languages (Frisian, Dutch, German) possess them too. Communication is better than failure to communicate, but native speakers of English are incapable of giving them up and nor should they be expected to.


 
Well, I can tell you from a learner's point of view. Yes, phrasal verbs give a little bit of trouble, because there is one word for many actions that are very different and the only difference is in this little tiny word that follows. It is not the same to look after as to look upon. To look out, or to look down. And ask any non-native about the verb GET. Let's see how many headaches this verb gave them, before they learnt to distinguish many variants of it. 
For a person who encounters for the first time with these kind of verbs it can be a little bit confusing. It is much easier to tell take care, despise, be careful etc... There words are different, so they are easier to distinguish.
But, it is not that they are a big obstacle... Even though they cam make a pretty big confusion when used in a wrong way.... Which does happen when a non-native speaker speaks.


----------



## ceci '79

sound shift said:
			
		

> There's been some talk in this thread of phrasal verbs getting in the way of communication, as if they were some idiosyncratic, fringe, part of the language, on a par with slang, that could easily be expunged. This is not true at all - they are an integral part of English. The other West Germanic languages (Frisian, Dutch, German) possess them too. Communication is better than failure to communicate, but native speakers of English are incapable of giving them up and nor should they be expected to.


 
And in what way did I suggest that? I never even remotely hinted that native speakers should modify the way they express themselves!

The whole discussion was about the way non-native speakers are expected to speak English.


----------



## ceci '79

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I think it is normal for a speaker of X to assume that a native-speaker they are conversing with means what they appear to mean when they say "qwerty uiop asdf ghjkl". It is also normal to assume that when a non-native says "qwerty uiop asdf ghjkl" — and there is a native phrase ("qwerty asdf uiop ghjkl") which resembles it — then it is possibe that the non-native _might_ be mistaken. The problem is in doing what Nicholas Cage's character does - correcting the 'error' without first checking that it is an _error_.


 
And what makes this assumption normal?

In my opinion (but I might be wrong) it is the (unconscious?) _double standard_ I described above that makes it "normal" for a native speaker to assume a mistake. 

I find it very ironic that so much emphasis is placed on idioms. I hear quite often that learners should know and use common idioms because they are believed to be "lively", "alive", "colourful", "authentic", and so forth. 

This is one of the most absurd assertions I have ever heard. 

Idioms are in fact "dead metaphors" that have lost their evocative power to the point that they have become a mere mechanical substitute for another word or phrase. They are just worn images, faded pictures. In fact, they are stereotypes. 

We would never encourage our children or our students to express themselves through trite stereotypes. We would actually advise them to avoid them and to communicate in an original and personal way. So why are non-natives encouraged (and trained) to ingest and regurgitate such unappetizing, reheated fare? 

Why should they be under the suspicion of being mistaken if they disregard established idioms and praised if they use them? I think they shouldn't.


----------



## maxiogee

ceci '79 said:
			
		

> And what makes this assumption normal?
> 
> In my opinion (but I might be wrong) it is the (unconscious?) _double standard_ I described above that makes it "normal" for a native speaker to assume a mistake.
> 
> I find it very ironic that so much emphasis is placed on idioms. I hear quite often that learners should know and use common idioms because they are believed to be "lively", "alive", "colourful", "authentic", and so forth.
> 
> This is one of the most absurd assertions I have ever heard.
> 
> Idioms are in fact "dead metaphors" that have lost their evocative power to the point that they have become a mere mechanical substitute for another word or phrase. They are just worn images, faded pictures. In fact, they are stereotypes.
> 
> We would never encourage our children or our students to express themselves through trite stereotypes. We would actually advise them to avoid them and to communicate in an original and personal way. So why are non-natives encouraged (and trained) to ingest and regurgitate such unappetizing, reheated fare?
> 
> Why should they be under the suspicion of being mistaken if they disregard established idioms and praised if they use them? I think they shouldn't.



Firstly I made no mention of idioms. I mentioned "a native phrase".
Secondly I was commenting on your quote from Lord of War about 
-I have an ache in my heart.
-We say "I have a heartache."
I think it is normal, as I said, to see that as a possible misrepresentation of the speaker's thoughts.
Bluntly the first statement requires medical assistance and the second requires spiritual assistance. It is _normal_ to check what the speaker is actually saying when there is room for misinterpretation - in any language, and not just concerning idioms.


----------



## ceci '79

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Firstly I made no mention of idioms. I mentioned "a native phrase".


 
I know. Sorry, my mistake: I wasn't clear enough. My message was supposed to be structured in two parts. Part 1: reply to your quote. Part 2: a thought suggested by the discussion, a direct association and an extension to idioms. Sorry for being sloppy and not pointing that out. That phrase, however, is a metaphor as well as many idioms. I hope mt intentions are clearer, now.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> Bluntly the first statement requires medical assistance and the second requires spiritual assistance.


 
Yes, of course, it is that way _unless_ the listener is inclined to accept the creation of a new metaphor and to abandon stereotypes for a moment.

Successful metaphors have a history, a life of their own: they are born, live for a short time as such, then they die and become fixed phrases or idioms. Once upon a time, even "heartache" was a new, creative metaphor inspired by the analogy between physical and spiritual pain. Then it has established itself as a fixed expression to the point that the physical element is no longer important or interesting for the speaker who uses it. It has lost its figurative value and its evocative power. Saying "I have an ache in my heart" to indicate spiritual discomfort is a way to go back to the origin of the metaphor, to its birth. 

When a native speaker does something like that, he is just being creative, original, idiosyncratic or whatever. When a non-native speaker does the same thing, a mistake is suspected. Here is the _double standard_.

In my opinion, not using the expression "heartache" (and substituting it with "a pain in my heart", "an ache in my heart", "a knot in my heart" or whatever), whether it is done on purpose or because such expression is unknown to the speaker, is _not_ a mistake. It is just a _choice_. And it is not even an indication that the non-native speaker in question has a lower level of English. Actually, I think it is an indication that this speaker is so comfortable using the language that he even dares to be a little creative.




			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> It is _normal_ to check what the speaker is actually saying when there is room for misinterpretation - in any language, and not just concerning idioms.


 
Maybe you are right. However, context is of great help in all communicative situations. In our example with "heartache", if the speaker is not in physical pain and he appears to be talking about spiritual matters and cares, then there is no room whatsoever for _misinterpretation_. His native interlocutor understands him very well. But, because of the double standard I described above, he assumes a "mistake."

Now, in an everyday conversation this is ok and, to a point, "normal" (to quote Mr. maxiogee).  As long, as you said, as the interlocutor refrains from pointing it out right away and impulsively.

However, this becomes a huge problem when an ESL teacher or examiner is faced with the task of grading an essay or an interview.

Also, once again, this phenomenon happens in every language, but the fact that English is a global language used all around the world makes it possible for a huge number of diverse speakers to feel quite comfortable speaking it. With comfort comes daring and the tendency to be a bit more creative and personal, to experiment. I don't think it should be stifled. Learners should not be expected to speak and write like journalists (who use already too many clichés and do not need reinforcements).


----------

