7 ms·

> given the large amount of effective communication that occurs in English I wasn't aware that anyone thought English was an effective language for communicati

> given the large amount of effective communication that occurs in English I wasn't aware that anyone thought English was an effective language for communicating. It's horrible. Even native English speakers have problems communicating all the time.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
False. Even native English speakers have occasional problems communicating.
- efes 11y ago
  False. Miscommunication occurs in most pure english interactions but only occasionally is significant and even more rarely actually kills someone. There is excellent research on text/email communication.
  - williamjennings 11y ago
    The most frequent time that English miscommunication becomes lethal is during translations between American, Imperial, and Metric standards of measure. The only other events I can imagine are when two speakers use separate dialects without informing each other.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    > Miscommunication occurs in most pure english interactions Citation needed. [Edit: On reflection, this statement is probably true, if you define "miscommunication" to be "the message sent is not exactly the same as the message received". But I think that is an unreasonable definition. I think it is more reasonable to define "miscommunication" as "the message sent is not substantially the same as the message received". If you claim that, I'd like to see your citations.]
    - efes 11y ago
      I can't find the study I was thinking of which involved the extreme disparity between the sender's self rating for their ability to convey an intent and the receiver's impression. Here is a similar abstract: http://pro.sagepub.com/content/56/1/1491.abstract http://pro.sagepub.com/content/56/1/1491.abstract Note that emotion is also conflated with aspects like priority and whether the response is a criticism or positive acknowledgement which will affect future interactions or even immediate attempts to "repair" non-existent faults. I personally find it slightly easier to communicate with non-native speakers over email as any bilingual must have more experience handling ambiguous communication. In working with native speakers in open floor plans, I have seen hilarious results that I would have found all the more hilarious if I were further away from the projectiles and had fully independent finances. (But I will concede that English is a good language for talking abstractly about subjects that are clearly neutral where it matters little if nuances are misunderstood.)
    - moefh 11y ago
      > But I think that is an unreasonable definition. I don't think unreasonable in the context of this discussion. When we use English, having a bit of miscommunication is likely harmless, and probably goes unnoticed most of the time. When we write a computer program, we really want the compiler to understand exactly what we mean.
      - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        True, and good point.
PeCaN 11y ago
Actually, English has a fairly high entropy/syllables ratio. [1][2] Also, given that we can infer with decent accuracy what people are saying even in noisy environments, I would say it's really not too bad. You could do better of course, but in a good spoke natural language you want a good mix of density (for efficient communication) and redundancy (for dealing with environmental variables). Optimizing for one comes at the expense of the other, and English strikes a pretty decent balance. [citation needed] 1: Pellegrino, et al. University of Lyons, 2011 <http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/fulltext/pellegrino/Pellegrino_to%20appear_Language.pdf> http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/fulltext/pellegrino/Pellegri... 2: There has been some valid criticism made to [1].
- SilasX 11y ago
  The issue is understanding, not transcribing. The existence of politicians (and politics) proves that it's easy to misunderstand.
baddox 11y ago
I only mentioned that there is a large amount of effective communication the occurs in English. Surely this is not a controversial claim.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

False. Even native English speakers have occasional problems communicating.

efes 11y ago
False. Miscommunication occurs in most pure english interactions but only occasionally is significant and even more rarely actually kills someone. There is excellent research on text/email communication.
- williamjennings 11y ago
  The most frequent time that English miscommunication becomes lethal is during translations between American, Imperial, and Metric standards of measure. The only other events I can imagine are when two speakers use separate dialects without informing each other.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  > Miscommunication occurs in most pure english interactions Citation needed. [Edit: On reflection, this statement is probably true, if you define "miscommunication" to be "the message sent is not exactly the same as the message received". But I think that is an unreasonable definition. I think it is more reasonable to define "miscommunication" as "the message sent is not substantially the same as the message received". If you claim that, I'd like to see your citations.]
  - efes 11y ago
    I can't find the study I was thinking of which involved the extreme disparity between the sender's self rating for their ability to convey an intent and the receiver's impression. Here is a similar abstract: http://pro.sagepub.com/content/56/1/1491.abstract http://pro.sagepub.com/content/56/1/1491.abstract Note that emotion is also conflated with aspects like priority and whether the response is a criticism or positive acknowledgement which will affect future interactions or even immediate attempts to "repair" non-existent faults. I personally find it slightly easier to communicate with non-native speakers over email as any bilingual must have more experience handling ambiguous communication. In working with native speakers in open floor plans, I have seen hilarious results that I would have found all the more hilarious if I were further away from the projectiles and had fully independent finances. (But I will concede that English is a good language for talking abstractly about subjects that are clearly neutral where it matters little if nuances are misunderstood.)
  - moefh 11y ago
    > But I think that is an unreasonable definition. I don't think unreasonable in the context of this discussion. When we use English, having a bit of miscommunication is likely harmless, and probably goes unnoticed most of the time. When we write a computer program, we really want the compiler to understand exactly what we mean.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      True, and good point.

PeCaN 11y ago

Actually, English has a fairly high entropy/syllables ratio. [1][2] Also, given that we can infer with decent accuracy what people are saying even in noisy environments, I would say it's really not too bad. You could do better of course, but in a good spoke natural language you want a good mix of density (for efficient communication) and redundancy (for dealing with environmental variables). Optimizing for one comes at the expense of the other, and English strikes a pretty decent balance. [citation needed] 1: Pellegrino, et al. University of Lyons, 2011 <http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/fulltext/pellegrino/Pellegrino_to%20appear_Language.pdf> http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/fulltext/pellegrino/Pellegri... 2: There has been some valid criticism made to [1].

SilasX 11y ago
The issue is understanding, not transcribing. The existence of politicians (and politics) proves that it's easy to misunderstand.

baddox 11y ago

I only mentioned that there is a large amount of effective communication the occurs in English. Surely this is not a controversial claim.