Native disturbance – first language interference and Hebrew/English errors

 

[Two adjacent clocks with different times*]

As anybody that has lived a foreign language or spent significant time with foreigners can attest, the native language creates challenges in fully mastering a foreign language. These interference errors often seem to be more resolute than the ability and desire to stop making them.  In many cases, non-native speakers never succeed in removing these inappropriate borrowings. Having lived in Israel for 32 years (immigrating on this date in 1989) and taught English to Israelis for the same period, I have experienced and observed certain error patterns in my Hebrew and the English of my students. These errors include sounds, gender issues and syntax constructions. Some of them are less critical than others but definitely mark the origin of the speaker.

[Sound space network]

The sounds of the different language family groups vary, making it difficult for learners, especially adult ones, to pronounce or distinguish certain letters. For Americans and Brits in Israel, the most common confusion is between alef א and ayin ע, which are pronounced [a] and [aa], respectively. Fortunately, most native Hebrew speakers tend to blur the difference, taking foreigners off the hook. On a more serious note are the Hebrew letters hay ה, het ח and chof כ,ף, with the first a soft h sound and the other two a guttural ch. The correct pronunciation distinguishes lah לה, meaning to her, from lach לך, to you. By contrast, Israelis struggle with distinguishing short and long vowels. For example, Israeli pronunciation of the word feet and sheet often more closely resembles fit and shit, which are neither homonyms nor synonyms. It is possible to train the mouth to properly pronounce these sounds but this improvement takes sustained effort.

[couple]

Hebrew, being a Semitic language, makes gender/number agreement an essential aspect of its structure while English is limited to natural gender. This requirement for grammatical agreement leads to repeated errors by English speaking expats living in Israel. They sometimes simply forget to pay attention to the gender of the noun and randomly use the masculine or feminine form of the adjective and sometimes the verb, frequently immediately correcting it at the end of the sentence. The effect of such errors is a lack of aesthetics but fundamentally does not prevent understanding. More embarrassingly, the Hebrew word for you is different for men and women, whether in the singular in plural form, specifically אתה [ata] and אתם [atem] for men and את [at] and אתן [aten] for women. English speakers don’t always remember to think before speaking and use the wrong form. Sharing a house with women, I tend to use at even when I should use ata and end up sounding rather stupid. The 2^nd person command form also has masculine and feminine forms, with the same result.  Native Hebrew speakers have an equally difficult time removing gender. They tend to forget that he and she only refer to a biological gender with everything else being it. As a result, a company becomes a she because it is a feminine noun in Hebrew while a house is a he. Certain nouns in Hebrew are plural, such as sky and water, are occasionally referred to as they by Hebrew speakers. It turns out that gender differences are also confusing in languages.

[parts of speech]

Every language has its own syntax but the difference between languages from different families can be rather significant. In Hebrew, prepositions, (e.g., on and in) are letters attached to words, with each word retaining its own preposition.  To demonstrate, in English, you can say, “I got tired of the noise and cars of the city” with the preposition of implicitly linked to the word cars. In Hebrew, you would have to add the preposition of (meh מ) to both nouns. Curiously, many otherwise knowledgeable expats are unaware of this fact. On a more practical level, when Brits literally translate their English construction of “It’s hot today”, זה חם היום [ze cham hayom], it is incorrect as Hebrew eschews the it is construction with the correct form being “hot today” חם היום [cham hayom]. By contrast, Israelis tend to err when using the connecting term for example in writing. While in formal Hebrew, it is correct to add a colon after the term and then write the examples, in English the rules of composition require a full sentence after it (as compared to the expressions such as and including). Temporal clauses are also traps for Israel as they tend to apply the Hebrew logic of putting the verb in the future. The result is “When I will arrive, I will call you,”, which no native English speaker would ever say.  Likewise, after modals, Israelis sometimes use the infinitive instead of the base form, e.g. The car can to break down anytime’ because Hebrew modals are followed by the infinitive. Thus, native language syntax does invade learned languages.

Clearly, the vast majority of language learners never reach completely native level of a foreign language partly because of first language interference. Some transference will always occur. However, most of these mistakes actually do not affect comprehension. Furthermore, native speakers are generally willing to forgive foreigners for these errors and focus on the positive. As in dealing with any type of disturbance, it helps to have a sense of humor regardless of your role, speaker or listener.

* Add picture capitons to help the blind access the Internet. Pictures via Pixabay.

Non-native bias? (in translation)

 

[Bearded dragons*]

At any get-together of translators, one topic that surely heats up the conversation is the virtue or lack thereof of translators translating into their non-native language. In its most extreme form, one side declares that non-native speakers, regardless of their language level, are unable to express themselves in writing like native sons and daughters, who have had a lifelong education in that language. On the other hand, those excluded translators retort by claiming that this generalization is, at best, a form of unjustified elitism and, at worst, an attempt to limit competition, noting that many native speakers, even translators, are unfamiliar with the grammar rules of their own language. As usual, the truth is more complex with the full expectation that many will disagree with me.

To clarify, it is clear that interpreters, as compared to translators, can and often should be natives in the source language, not target language, since their task often involves almost instantaneous understanding of the speech of people from all levels of society and a need to understand the subtext. For example, an APTI conference in Valencia, a professional interpreter recounted how difficult and important it was to understand the testimony of uneducated women in Yugoslavia during the War Crimes Tribunal because they were talking about rape, a taboo topic. The interpreter had to understand the code language of these people while the judges could cope with less-than-perfect English. So, the arguments below do not apply to interpreters.

To help non-translators understand the problem, it is first necessary to realize that the demands of written communication are different from those of spoken communication in terms of learning process and flexibility. Formal education is not required in order to speak a language. Numerous people worldwide have studied a foreign language, even for several years and are barely able to get a sentence out while others, with no education but merely the opportunity and necessity to use the language, not only express themselves clearly but live their daily lives in that language. By contrast, people attain the ability to express ideas in a clear, acceptable manner in writing through many years of formal schooling. To one degree or another, written language is a dialect that is only taught in schools although reading and speaking contribute to its acquisition. Furthermore, speaking is an instantaneous act that does not allow for editing and thus accepts individual differences in style and even grammar. When we judge spoken language, the essential issue is whether the listener understands with accuracy a secondary factor. It is true that people may note grammar and vocabulary errors, especially teachers and translators, but these mistakes are generally forgiven. On the other hand, written language, especially English, a hodgepodge of various roots, is a polished product, like a diamond. Since writers (and translators) have the time to edit, readers expect a perfect result in terms of grammar, syntax and style. The requirements of those elements may evolve but do so quite slowly. The “accepted” manner of writing, with small variations, is de rigueur. Any writer failing to comply with those rules is harshly judged as the sharp reactions to grammatical errors in comments in social media shows.  The scope of acceptable written communication is rather limited.

For this reason, native speakers generally categorically reject translation by non-natives in their language. Unless the foreigners were educated in that language from childhood, it is stated that they simply cannot write like a native but instead write in a hybrid style combining their native and second languages. Teachers call this language interference, which can also happen to natives after sufficient years living in a foreign country. Examples include Hebrish, where commas and preposition use is rather whimsical and Russian Engish, famous for its curious use of articles.  Consequently, translations by non-natives may be accurate in terms of content but will sound “translated”, not seamless, the legendary goal of all translation. Specifially,  Ideally, a proper translation should sound like it was an original work. Clearly, the vast majority of non-natives, Samual Beckett aside, are not capable of achieving that goal. Thus, in terms of attaining seamlessness, the nativists are correct.

Yet, supply and demand create a strong niche for non-native translators. First, even in the common language combinations such as Spanish-English, excellent non-native writing may be good enough for the customer or the customer may lack sufficient knowledge to detect the errors. On a larger scale, many languages used on one country with low population suffer from a lack of non-natives that have learned the language proficiently. For example, few Americans and Brits have learned Czech or Hungarian, to name a few. Thus, law students in the Czech Republics are also trained as English translators as there are insufficient numbers of native English translators in these combinations. In addition, the translation rates in a country may be too low to attract foreign-based translators, effectively giving local, non-native translators a virtual monopoly. The Russian Federation is the most striking example where non-native, local translation is the norm due to the price structure for the most part. Thus, in practice, non-native translation is rather common and acceptable in some markets.

As in most issues, the question whether it is acceptable or not for translators to translate into their non-native language is not black or white. Ideally, translators should only translate into their native language since they have the proper ear for that language. On the other hand, market conditions create a situation requiring translation by non-native speakers. Reality is often a shade of grey.

* Caption pictures to allow the blind access. Picture via Pixabay

Why (and Z Generation) English

The changes in the geopolitical map since the beginning of the 21^st century have not changed the fact that English is the lingua franca of the world. English continues to serve as the primary international language of communication. What is interesting is that of the 7.5 billion people that speak English in the world, some 20% of the total population, only 360 million speak it as native language. Therefore, the primary learners of English are people living outside the Anglo-Saxon world.

While the need for English has not changed, its purpose has changed radically. Once, the motivation for learning English was to be to travel to England and the United States and order something on the menu or talk with tourists. Only the elite few required better English to conduct business or give lectures in these countries. Today, the economy is global and requires even the smallest business people, such as an E-bay supplier, to work with people all over the world. To do so, they must communicate in English. This requirement is so vital that English is the language of communication within countries and companies whose native language is not English even if that language is a major language. For example, many German multinationals function in English while Israeli high tech-tech companies often write all their first drafts of technical material in English.

On a wider front, consumers in Europe or Asia that do not understand advanced English may find it difficult to understand vital explanations or even realize what they are buying or read the name of the store. Companies assume that buyers can read English. On the more controversial level, an increasing number of ordinary people worldwide find it natural to speak English to each other even though they are native speakers of same non-English language. Chatting in English is often considered more sophisticated. On a linguistic front for some, English words are flooding other languages and “wiping out native species”. For example, Israeli chefs love saying crispy instead of the Hebrew word פריך [parich]. Woe to the television viewer or parent that does not English.

The education systems, as usual, are generations behind.  Nomenclature in teaching English has included English as Foreign Language (EFL), English as a Second Language (ESL) and English for Academic Purposes (EAP), to name just a few. Even the latter is no longer sufficient as non-native speakers also require English for business purposes to be able to integrate into and profit from the global economy. Alas, most programs and books seem to focus on visiting London and New York and enjoying the tourist sites. The new European CEFR, a series of can-do statements for various levels of English, does provide a transitional tool but fails to define the dominant context of the English use. Furthermore, the European love of precision and accuracy ignore the fact that non-native speakers need to be able to express their ideas clearly and concisely above all, i.e., grammar is much less important than fluency and accuracy. The sad fact is that too many learners must invest significant amounts of their own money to attain their required level of English.  Worldwide, the schools are failing in the task of properly preparing them for the 21^st century.

The X, Y and Z of the situation is that all generations worldwide require advanced English to fully function in the global economy and even understand simple conversations in their own country. “The Queen lives in Buckingham Palace” may still be interesting but is no longer sufficient.

Going native

Natural and foreign are relative concepts.  A good example of that is my personal perception of foreign language use in Israel. I will explain.

Hebrew is official language and, more importantly, the language of daily use for almost 75% of the residents of Israel.  Thus, in contrast to pre-State Israel, speaking Hebrew is a natural act for most Israelis.

 Likewise, at the college where I teach, Muslim, Christian and Druze Arabs speak Arabic to each other as they would do naturally in their own villages and families.  That makes complete sense.

In my neighborhood, there are many Ethiopians. In the morning, I can hear from my office the older generation talking to each other in Amharit as they sit on the benches surrounding the playground.  Many barely know Hebrew. So, Amharit as a language belongs to Israel.

Likewise, in cafes and squares, older Hungarians and Romanians sit and discuss the world in their mother tongue as they have for some 50 years, at least.  As the song notes, this is a tradition.

French is also heard throughout Israel. Older immigrants from North Africa and recent ones from France are more comfortable using their mother tongue than their adopted tongue, something I can understand.

In ultra-religious neighborhoods throughout Israel, but mainly in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Zefat, the street language is Yiddish because Hebrew is a holy language that should not be used on banal matters. While I would disagree politically, I have to respect a person’s choice to use a language.

All this brings us to English. Immigrants from numerous English-speaking countries have come to Israel, including myself.  Many came as families with English as the language of communication in the house. Not only that, there is no need to learn Hebrew as almost everybody can understand English. Yet, for some reason, I find the use of English in the street foreign and even offensive, however illogical that is.

The only reason I can find for this feeling is that I am imposing my ideology on my fellow Anglo-Saxons. Specifically, I came to Israel determined to be Israeli and use Hebrew in my personal life.  While I teach English in English, I have always spoken Hebrew with my family and friends. It is a matter of pride. I find it lazy and unacceptable for English speaking immigrants not to try to speak Hebrew. Of course, I don’t hold that standard to speakers of other languages.  That is another story, isn’t it? So, I concur with Bertrand Russel who said, “"Man is a rational animal — so at least I have been told.”

[Rendering of an ancient picture of the Tower of Babel from a 2500 year old, one of four such images from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2080375/One-earliest-drawings-Tower-Babel-ancient-stone-tablet.html]