quick bullet points:

* I made a similar observations about indirectness in the post comments of below entry.

* I revert to my occasional ugly Americanness when I say that the indirectness (when it comes to BUSINESS) of many non-Americans, eg Arabs especially, is simply annoying with no redeeming value. Socially it is nice.

* Your English is not in any way unusual, at least here, there is occasional British-bred word choice making it different, though not difficult, for an American, especially when going scatological, but not in any way alien.

*

Somewhere when doing a piece on the 1956 war in ancient days (for me) I came across a story whereby an American mediator between Nasser and Ben-Gurion came away from a meeting with the former convinced they had solved the Mideast regional war. Only after did he learn from another at the meeting that Nasser's repeated smiling and nodding yes was his polite way of saying "I have no idea what you are saying in your thick Texas accent."

Well, with respect to business, given that is my life here, I can only say that I prefer a happy medium, but at the same time my core lesson is that 'when in Rome....'

One needs to adapt to the local habits. There are other issues that I find worse than the issue of indirectness (in particular, esp. in the old Middle East, the aversion to criticism, even indirect). The Maghreb, thank God, is better, but sadly adopted the almost as bad French business habits.

Actually, Col's stylistic use of English structure is very unusual and not just for the occasional British idiom.(At least in written form anyway, I've never heard him speak and most likely won't unless Eerie decides to set up The Lounsbury Podcast).

This distinctively eclectic word pattern is why Col's Italian friend asked her question, which to my mind was a very logical one, and also why some ppl inquire every so often if he's a " company man".

agreed on the comment regarding Col's english structure and word usage patterns. it is not the american english norm. it is much too educated for that.

What is the fourth language you speak? Spanish? Hebrew? Icelandic?

Odd, my structure is unusual in English?

I suppose it's because I have to structure my writing in 3 languages, and I end up with a melange.

Although Marc I am afraid given reactions to my spoken English where literally everyone takes me as a foreigner.

It strikes me that this remains perhaps one of the most serious challenges one faces in either business or, if I may range afar slightly, public diplomacy. It is not merely a question of rendering the message mechanically in the target language . . . it is a question of rendering the underlying message in the proper frame of reference to achieve one’s objectives.

Quite correct. This is a problem (and, occasionally, an opportunity) on many levels.

First of all, languages do not map into each other one-to-one. Every language can express concepts that are unique to it and effectively untranslatable into other languages. English usually solves this problem by simply adopting the foreign word and corresponding concept but in many languages, it's not so simple. Consider the differences between angst, ennui and depression. I'm guessing that finding an elegant translation for these words into, say, arabic, is something of a headache.

Second, whether language drives culture or culture drives language,language is inextricably intertwined with its cultural context. Even in the driest of business environments, concepts must be translated with an eye to their cultural significance. At the most basic level, consider how absurd the circumlocutions common in arabic look when translated directly into english. I can only assume that standard business english borders on a criminal threat when translated directly into arabic.

The problem is, of course, much more complex than that. Think, for example, how notoriously difficult it is to translate humor. This is because all humor relies on a shared cultural context to make it funny. For example, there is a class of humor that involves some member of a disfavored ethnic group/country being reliably stupid. Once upon a time in the U.S., Poles were the butt of these jokes. (Though not, apparently, since the mid 1980s.) In England, it's the French, in Argentina, Chileans, in Canada, people from Newfoundland, etc., etc. In order to make one of these jokes "work," you must adjust them for cultural context, even when going from Canada to England. It's a hundred times worse when going from Canada to Egypt.

Humor is an extreme example but this problem arises in all cross-cultural communications. The answer is to forget trying to translate the language of the communication and concentrate on the effect you want that communication to have on your counterparty. Suppose, for example, that you're a North American company having a serious warranty issue with another company. Your goal is to get them to perform. In the U.S., you might write a fairly direct and nasty letter threatening legal action. But if your counterparty is in Japan, such a letter will be worse than ineffective. If you want your warranty problem fixed, you're going to have to approach your Japanese counterparty in their cultural context and communicate the seriousness of the problem and your resolve in a way that resonates with their cultural assumptions. Everybody has levers that can be pushed but in order to push them, you must understand their culture to figure out what they are.

Finally, (at least for the moment) there is the problem of studied ambiguity. Cross cultural communication often obscures as much as it communicates, sometimes intentionally so. Think, for example, of the careful turn of diplomatic phrase so often necessary to "resolve" some dispute. All the parties know that each party interprets the phrase differently and all the parties hope that there will never be a need to clarify the phrase's meaning.

This is not, however, simply a problem for international diplomats. It happens every day in cross-cultural agreements of every kind, whether personal or business. I have often seen business contracts which include a potentially suicidal term along the lines of "Both the english and italian translations of this agreement shall be equally authoritative and binding." The english and italian versions of the agreement do not and, in fact, cannot, say the same thing.

Fortuitously enough, there is an article on this weeks Economist on this very topic. It turns out that in order to communicate, people do not have to agree on what symbols mean, they must simply agree on what symbols to use.

TS

From a post at ChicagoBoyz

"My idea of hell would be life lived in code; our inner as well as our society's health require an ability to speak honestly, directly, words coming up and out with no filter, no hedging, no reinterpreting in "appropriate" words, muted feelings. With such a distraction at such a level, we become less intent on (and less good at) capturing reality. It wastes time but more importantly energy."