4 ms·

>The message, written in English, was sent by a native speaker to a colleague for whom English was a second language. Unsure of the word, the recipient found tw

>The message, written in English, was sent by a native speaker to a colleague for whom English was a second language. Unsure of the word, the recipient found two contradictory meanings in his dictionary. He acted on the wrong one. >When such misunderstandings happen, it’s usually the native speakers who are to blame. So...somebody got a message they felt was ambiguous and confused them, didn't ask for clarification before acting upon it, made a huge mistake but it was the person who sent the message originally's fault? Personally, having been in the opposite situation, where i'm one of the only native English speakers at a workplace. If i didn't understand something somebody wrote or said to me, i made damn sure i double checked with them before i actually did anything.

david38 5y ago
This
phkahler 5y ago
>> but it was the person who sent the message originally's fault? That's not what the article said at all. It seemed to place the blame on the word. I'm with you that one person should have sought clarification since they knew there were two meanings, but that's not actually the root cause. Another person may have only been aware of one of those meanings and made the "mistake" without ever thinking they needed clarification. The problem was the use of ambiguous language. I find it really amusing to see someone thinking they blamed the sender. It seems like another example of how English speakers are so used to having to interpret words.
- grawprog 5y ago
  I understood they were blaming the word. Words don't appear out of nowhere. The word was written by the sender, the implication is the sender's choice of words caused the problem which could have been avoided by using a different word. I disagree with this premise and believe the problem could have been avoided had the receiver taken the self responsibility to make sure they fully understood the message before acting upon it and if they had doubts, such as when they found two contradictory meanings, should have just simply asked for clarification. If you don't understand something, it's on you. I've been misunderstood, i've misunderstood other people and the easiest thing anyone can do in that situation is say: 'sorry i didn't quite get that' or 'sorry could you explain what you mean' or something along those lines.
- zackees 5y ago
  It’s clearly putting the fault at the native english speaker, per the title. In an age of trigger culture and micro aggressions this article is a prejudicial sucker punch to native speakers of English.
  - totalZero 5y ago
    You give the article too much credit. It's just a collection of words that weakly conveys a badly formed idea. I find it irritating that the hook is a super-secret word that cannot be shared with the reader.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- hn8788 5y ago
  The article specifically says that native english speakers are to blame, not the word. > When such misunderstandings happen, it’s usually the native speakers who are to blame. Ironically, they are worse at delivering their message than people who speak English as a second or third language, according to Chong.
  - phkahler 5y ago
    >> Months later, senior management investigated why the project had flopped, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. “It all traced back to this one word,” says Chia Suan Chong, a UK-based communications skills and intercultural trainer, who didn't reveal the tricky word because it is highly industry-specific and possibly identifiable. “Things spiralled out of control because both parties were thinking the opposite.” Yeah, where does it say that? We could blame the sender for choosing an ambiguous word, or we could blame the recipient for not getting clarification, but they clearly place it on the word without pointing a finger at either human. The overall article does point a finger at native english speakers for being imprecise, but the specific example doesn't IMHO.
xxs 5y ago
>i made damn sure i double checked with them before i actually did anything. Ahh well, most non-native speakers would be concerned about their English proficiency level. For some that would be a quality worth mentioning in the hiring process. My experience would that most people will shut off and don't ask for clarification but try and fill the gaps. It's a rather common issue.
charlieo88 5y ago
Agreed. The article is a fluff piece, using the most generic and sanitized anecdotes. What WORD was not understood? What was the culture of the sender vs receiver? Did I miss where there was any statistical information presented in the article? What other languages/native speakers were reviewed before determining English speakers won the title of world's worst communicators?
unknown_error 5y ago
You're right, it wasn't a very clear article. Kinda fluffy actually. But it did have one good point: that native English speakers often are not required to learn a second language to facilitate business, and so are less aware of the intricacies of intercultural communications (whereas everyone else had to learn English as a second language, so they're on more or less equal footing with each other). Even in the English-speaking world, we run into similar issues communicating across borders, whether that's cultural differences across states, urban/rural divides, regional accents, or across countries (US/UK/Australia/South Africa/India, etc.) I don't think the article presented enough evidence to support the headline that "native English speakers are the worst communicators". It's less about English vs any mother tongue being worse or better; rather, bilingualism has numerous benefits (intercultural communications being one of them), but many in the Anglosphere are not bilingual (because they're not forced to be, unlike people who have to learn English as a second language): https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428634-000-oh-to-be-bilingual-in-the-anglosphere/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428634-000-oh-to-be... TLDR: Fluffy article, interesting underlying point

david38 5y ago

This

phkahler 5y ago

>> but it was the person who sent the message originally's fault? That's not what the article said at all. It seemed to place the blame on the word. I'm with you that one person should have sought clarification since they knew there were two meanings, but that's not actually the root cause. Another person may have only been aware of one of those meanings and made the "mistake" without ever thinking they needed clarification. The problem was the use of ambiguous language. I find it really amusing to see someone thinking they blamed the sender. It seems like another example of how English speakers are so used to having to interpret words.

grawprog 5y ago
I understood they were blaming the word. Words don't appear out of nowhere. The word was written by the sender, the implication is the sender's choice of words caused the problem which could have been avoided by using a different word. I disagree with this premise and believe the problem could have been avoided had the receiver taken the self responsibility to make sure they fully understood the message before acting upon it and if they had doubts, such as when they found two contradictory meanings, should have just simply asked for clarification. If you don't understand something, it's on you. I've been misunderstood, i've misunderstood other people and the easiest thing anyone can do in that situation is say: 'sorry i didn't quite get that' or 'sorry could you explain what you mean' or something along those lines.
zackees 5y ago
It’s clearly putting the fault at the native english speaker, per the title. In an age of trigger culture and micro aggressions this article is a prejudicial sucker punch to native speakers of English.
- totalZero 5y ago
  You give the article too much credit. It's just a collection of words that weakly conveys a badly formed idea. I find it irritating that the hook is a super-secret word that cannot be shared with the reader.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hn8788 5y ago
The article specifically says that native english speakers are to blame, not the word. > When such misunderstandings happen, it’s usually the native speakers who are to blame. Ironically, they are worse at delivering their message than people who speak English as a second or third language, according to Chong.
- phkahler 5y ago
  >> Months later, senior management investigated why the project had flopped, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. “It all traced back to this one word,” says Chia Suan Chong, a UK-based communications skills and intercultural trainer, who didn't reveal the tricky word because it is highly industry-specific and possibly identifiable. “Things spiralled out of control because both parties were thinking the opposite.” Yeah, where does it say that? We could blame the sender for choosing an ambiguous word, or we could blame the recipient for not getting clarification, but they clearly place it on the word without pointing a finger at either human. The overall article does point a finger at native english speakers for being imprecise, but the specific example doesn't IMHO.

xxs 5y ago

>i made damn sure i double checked with them before i actually did anything. Ahh well, most non-native speakers would be concerned about their English proficiency level. For some that would be a quality worth mentioning in the hiring process. My experience would that most people will shut off and don't ask for clarification but try and fill the gaps. It's a rather common issue.

charlieo88 5y ago

Agreed. The article is a fluff piece, using the most generic and sanitized anecdotes. What WORD was not understood? What was the culture of the sender vs receiver? Did I miss where there was any statistical information presented in the article? What other languages/native speakers were reviewed before determining English speakers won the title of world's worst communicators?

unknown_error 5y ago

You're right, it wasn't a very clear article. Kinda fluffy actually. But it did have one good point: that native English speakers often are not required to learn a second language to facilitate business, and so are less aware of the intricacies of intercultural communications (whereas everyone else had to learn English as a second language, so they're on more or less equal footing with each other). Even in the English-speaking world, we run into similar issues communicating across borders, whether that's cultural differences across states, urban/rural divides, regional accents, or across countries (US/UK/Australia/South Africa/India, etc.) I don't think the article presented enough evidence to support the headline that "native English speakers are the worst communicators". It's less about English vs any mother tongue being worse or better; rather, bilingualism has numerous benefits (intercultural communications being one of them), but many in the Anglosphere are not bilingual (because they're not forced to be, unlike people who have to learn English as a second language): https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428634-000-oh-to-be-bilingual-in-the-anglosphere/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428634-000-oh-to-be... TLDR: Fluffy article, interesting underlying point