Non-Native English Writers
For the past three weeks or so, I have been editing an enormous number of documents. It’s freelance work that I picked up on Elance, for a veterinary company with some really nice employees. You know you’re onto a winner when the first email from your editing contact begins “Sorry for the delay: still recovering from the weekend hangover”!
Some of the documents I’m editing are obviously written by people with English as a second language. This made me think that I should keep track of some of the more common grammar errors that are made by non-native writers. I’m extra-familiar with this, since my partner is French and makes the same mistakes!
So here are a few that appear very frequently, as they appeared in documents about horses (in case you wondered).
I will try to explain each problem, but avoid technical grammar-speak, in the hope that this will be useful to the non-English blogging and writing community!
“This particular type of animal could still be commonly seen at certain parts of England.”
This phrase was used as part of a present-tense paragraph. The “continuing activity” is a frequent stumbling block for many non-native speakers: the idea of having to figure out whether an action was happening and is still going on.
In this case, the phrase above can mean that the animal “can possibly be seen”, but most native English readers will consider the word “could” to be in the past tense. The phrase therefore changes meaning and becomes “could possibly be seen in the past”. That doesn’t make sense in a present-tense paragraph.
The important thing here is that the animal is common – not that people see it. By rephrasing a little, it becomes much clearer. Also, “at certain parts” should be “in certain parts” – this is another common mistranslation. Most languages do, indeed, use “at” – English is just odd in this particular case.
Suggested change: “This particular type of animal is still common in certain parts of England.”
“Most are used for pulling royal carriages for centuries.”
A historical comment, that a particular breed of horse was used for a certain job. Obviously, the verb is in the wrong tense – “are” needs to be changed to “were”.
There’s another problem, though: the placement of “for centuries” makes it sound like the poor creatures had to constantly pull carriages for several hundred years, without stopping!
Suggested change: “For centuries, they were mostly used to pull royal carriages.”
“Its eyes are brilliant and very alluring.”
This is a thesaurus mistake: the author has translated a word like “attractive” or “appealing” (something that is physically pretty), but has unfortunately chosen a word with sexual undertones. The word “alluring” implies sexual attraction, which would – one hopes – not be the case where a horse is concerned.
Suggested change: “Its eyes are brilliant and attractive.”
“A chest that is quite deeper than most.”
Again, an unfortunate choice of translated word. “Quite” just doesn’t work like this. “Quite” is a synonym for words like “fairly” or “very”. Thus, it could be combined with “deep” (“very deep”) but not with “deeper”: a word like “rather” or “somewhat” may be more appropriate. If it’s a significant different, how about “notably”?
Suggested change: “A chest that is somewhat deeper than most.”
“…up to a certain height. On the other hand, these breeds come in colors…”
Another common problem when writing in an unfamiliar language is all those little start-of-sentence phrases, like “Additionally…” or “In general…”. In this case, the author chose “On the other hand”, but it makes no sense in the paragraph, as it was really only there to begin a sentence with another piece of unrelated information.
“On the other hand” presents an opposing argument or fact to the one given in the previous sentence. So, for example, one could say “He is not very tall. On the other hand, he’s not very short!” or “On the one hand, I like the colour. On the other hand, I don’t like the shape.”
Suggested change: Remove “On the other hand” entirely. It’s not needed.
“Because these animals are traditionally bred in areas all around France, they are sought after by many animal lovers”
Here, we have a problem of an inconsistent conclusion. The first part of the phrase simply doesn’t explain the second. They are sought after because they’re bred all over France? Why does that mean they’re so valuable? There’s no logic to the conclusion at all.
Suggested change: Simply replace “they” with “and”. That way there’s two separate statements that don’t depend on each other.
They have been common in the farmlands of France and Belgium.
I struggled with this one for a little while. What was wrong with it? I knew it sounded weird but couldn’t place exactly why – then it hit me: it’s either in the wrong tense or needs more precision.
If it’s the tense, then “They have been common” should probably be “They are common”. An editor would have to go and check that fact before changing it, by the way.
Alternatively, it needs more information. “They have been common” tells the reader absolutely nothing. They were common, but aren’t any more? They have been and continue to be? They’ve recently become common, though they weren’t before? It’s just too vague.
Suggested change: In this case, it was the tense. “They are common…”
“Vivid”
This is one of those words that, unless you’ve run across an incorrect translation before, you won’t think strange. The thing is that most Latin-based languages use the word in a different way to English.
To an English person, “vivid” relates to colour. It can be usedto convey flamboyance or a “colourful” personality as well, but it always comes back to the basis of colour.
To speakers of most other languages, “vivid” relates to being “full of life” or – in English terms – “vivacious“.
It’s what the French call a “false friend”: a word that is close in spelling, but means something else (look up “sensible” and “support” in a French dictionary for a couple of other examples). It’s an irregularity that’s worth remembering!
“In perfect shape” and “Perfectly-shaped”
A result of English sometimes being rather compact, these two phrases have different meanings. Although the first is the literal translation of the second from a lot of other languages, it means something else.
“In perfect shape” is used as an expression of physical or mental condition: “I was in perfect shape for the competition” would mean that the person was at the peak of their physical and/or mental preparations.
“Perfectly-shaped” is a comment on the physical appearance of something. A perfectly-shaped Greek urn looks exactly like the mental picture one has of the object.
Any more?
Those are just a few of the more common errors I’ve encountered recently. I hope the explanations will help some of my blogging and writing compatriots out there!
I’d love to hear from any non-native English writers, of course. What is the toughest thing for you to get right? Is there a mistake you make every time? Is there something you’ve never understood that I might be able to clarify?
Go on, leave me a comment and let me know!
I can only say thank you for this. I haven’t finished the whole article but will do definitely tomorrow and I could use another few hundred examples. By the way the “they have been common” is so familiar. I think I’ve met this expression many times in my native language as well. Maybe the breed is now extinct or they moved to different areas?
“The thing is that most Latin-based languages use the word in a different way to English.” One might change the word ‘to’ to ‘than.’
“Most are used for pulling royal carriages for centuries.”
Your issue is not solved since royal carriages are still pulled by horses. You made it sound like they are no longer doing this. I’d suggest the present continuous: They have been pulling royal carriages for centuries.
He is not very tall. On the other hand, he’s not very short!
Perhaps it would be better like this: He is not very tall, but he is not very short, either.
or better yet: He is of medium height.
Avoid the forest of words for the leaf of insight when brevity and legibility go hand-in-hand.
“Because these animals are traditionally bred in areas all around France, they are sought after by many animal lovers”
I think the writer got the ‘because’ in the wrong place. Better would be: Because they are sought after by many animal lovers, these animals are still being bred in areas all around France.
In any case, I’ve had my fill of editing. My cup will once more runneth over within a few hours when I’m back at work.
Two things come to mind right now that I would like to mention to you for your comments.
1) How is it that in the UK you call people ‘ON’ a telephone number, whereas in Canada (and the US) we call people ‘AT’ a telephone number? It seems to me that ‘at’ is more accurate since it is somewhere else.
2) Many collective nouns such as ‘Government’ are referred to in the plural in the UK, whereas in Canada (and the US) we almost always use the singular. ["The Government is thinking about having an election soon."] I know either is correct, but why the usual strong difference?
Steven: Interesting thoughts and a useful second eye (or pair of them, even)! Thank’ee.
“One might change the word ‘to’ to ‘than.’” – true, but I never use that: one is different to another for me. “Than” always sounds like a cop-out. Purely personal reasons!
“They have been pulling royal carriages for centuries.” – sounds like they’re in centuries-long jobs, still – especially to a non-native speaker reading the phrase. Call me picky. “For centuries, they have been used to pull royal carriages” in present continuous (though in this case, mine was OK since it was actually a past-tense thing: forgot to specify that!)
“Perhaps it would be better like this: He is not very tall, but he is not very short, either.” – that would defeat the point of trying to show the usage of “on the other hand”, but if I hadn’t been doing that precise thing, your version would indeed read a lot smoother.
“Better would be: Because they are sought after by many animal lovers, these animals are still being bred in areas all around France.” – if your assumption of intent is correct, yes. I had no contact with that particular author and couldn’t verify that the reason for the breeding was their popularity, so couldn’t make such a decision, though – hence the neutrality of simply making two statements. It makes logical sense, of course, but I didn’t want to make a statement that hadn’t been researched successfully. Me being picky again, I suppose.
“In any case, I’ve had my fill of editing. My cup will once more runneth over within a few hours when I’m back at work.” – remember to put a coaster down or it’ll leave a mark on the table.
John: Thanks for dropping in. Interesting questions. I’m not an etymologist, so I can’t really answer the first. I suppose it’s just one of those weird things. Many Brits will even assume that if you say you will “call”, you’ll come to their house (though this is much less prevalent now).
The collective noun thing is difficult. “Government”, for example, is singular: “The Government says it will do this.” However, one can also write “They say they will do it” because the government (or a company) is made up of a lot of people who, as a group, will do the thing. Strictly speaking, the singular form should be used.
I guess it’s a part of the British habit of using “they” as a non-gender-specific singular form. I don’t honestly know, but that seems a reasonable explanation!
“They have been pulling royal carriages for centuries.” – sounds like they’re in centuries-long jobs, still – especially to a non-native speaker reading the phrase. Call me picky. “For centuries, they have been used to pull royal carriages” in present continuous (though in this case, mine was OK since it was actually a past-tense thing: forgot to specify that!)
From what little I gathered from the article on your tidbits, he was writing about a particular breed of horse. Since you’re talking about a breed of horse, it’s OK to say that they’ve been pulling for centuries. In any case, a thing I’m sure we’ve both noticed is that the higher quality print either through magazine or book format, is that there are an awful lot of people checking each other through proofreading.
“Perhaps it would be better like this: He is not very tall, but he is not very short, either.” – that would defeat the point of trying to show the usage of “on the other hand”, but if I hadn’t been doing that precise thing, your version would indeed read a lot smoother.
I think the usefulness of ‘on the one hand, blah blah blah,’ followed by ‘on the other hand, blah blah blah,’ can be seen as useful in longer passages where it might help disambiguate. ie, in constructions where there are at least 100 words in each hand. In short constructions, as your example was illustrating, it’s completely unnecessary.
Thanks for your thoughts.
“Many Brits will even assume that if you say you will “call”, you’ll come to their house.” I remember this when living in the UK, but I think there is an ‘on’ after the ‘call’ – ie: “I will call ON you”, and this is vastly different from “I will call you”.
Yes, I am aware (and tried to stress this above) that many of these ‘government/company’ words are sigular but refer to plural content. It’s just that in the UK, the plural always seems to be preferred – I see it all the time in UK texts on the web and in UK magazines, etc, and it always makes me smile.
But what REALLY irks me, living in such close proximity to the US, is their continual butchering of our wonderful language. Intentionally dropping the ‘u’s in many words is one thing (and that was consciously done by Messers Webster et al way back when), but using a word like ‘check’ for ‘cheque’ is utter nonsense – why not use a perfectly good existing word for a separate item when there is one? Likewise the word ‘meter’ and NEVER ‘metre’. Why? ‘metre’ is a unit of length ONLY. Why not use that useful distinction? But that’s Americans for you!
I could rattle on all night on this topic!!!!
Where IS everyone these days? I look forward to some stimulating comments, perhaps to comment on!
Ah, winter is almost upon us and that usually means more people will spend more time on their computers.
Since this is really a non-native English writers’ website, I smile when I write as above, “… spend time ON their computers.” It reminds me of a video clip of Foster Brooks and Dean Martin discussing flying, FB being an apparent pilot (though always drunk) and asking DM if he’s ever been on TV. (You have to see it to get what I’m trying, badly, to describe!)
So, come on, people, write to us!
(Oh, btw, I hope I didn’t rattle anyone’s cage by my remarks re Americans and their ‘butchering’ of our wonderful language?)
I’ve found this page through google. After read many blogging guide, I’ve found that 1 of my problems for blogging is my Language. This post is really helpful for non-native writter such as me.
Thank you!
SekRanger:
Welcome to this site and to the English language! You do very well, it seems, by what you have written.
I would be willing to help you with our language directly, if Steven would permit it and release your e-mail address to me.
I am a Canadian, born in UK a good many years ago, and the use of English is my passion.
Let’s see what Steven advises first though.
John B(mjbyyz).
091228-11:42EST
Hello there!
Thank you for your tips!
Now, what really brought me to your blog was the belief (should I say hope?) to find people wanting to hire non-native English writers.
From what I’ve just read in this post, this is not as difficult as I had thought.
You see, I’ve written 10 books, translated over 30 others and have written for some magazines and blogs. But all in Brazilian Portuguese (yes, I’m in Brazil).
So… are there really writing jobs out there for non-native English writers?
Oh and, btw, I always confuse “yet” and “still”.
Thank you!
Sek: Thanks for dropping in. Most people will tell you the same thing – that language gets better as you use it, so just practice. I’d add to that by advising you find a friend or forum where people will also correct what you write.
Marcos: It is entirely possible to find work in a non-native tongue. Most of the big bidding sites include job offers from people who are more concerned with “content grinding” (that is, producing a lot) than perfect English – many of them have an editor who will correct the text. The problem is that you’ll be expected to work for less if your English skills are non-native (or less than “perfect”). Thankfully, there are also jobs available for non-English work – even on English sites. Like all freelance work, it’s a case of finding sources.
The article is very helpful to us freelance writers but even still many people judge us not because of our English but because of where we were born and raised yet many of us have something close to perfect English.