Attending that (awesome) (in many different ways) PT Dublin made me remember that this has been the first week-end in a while where I’ve often struggled to understand what my interlocutors were telling me, the Irish accent being fairly strong for a non-native speaker.
Nicholas Sabin’s excellent article on Communication Skills touches many great points but is in my opinion missing one: Both the native-English speaker (we’ll call him ES through the article) and the non-native English (NES) speaker share responsibility in creating a real discussion.
A couple common situations
Have you ever witnessed a situation in which somebody is “listening” (or rather pretending to listen) to somebody else despite not really caring about what the other says? He could be rude and bluntly say that he doesn’t care much, but most of the time, common courtesy makes him politely smile and nod while waiting for the other to finish talking. Then he’ll likely say he has something to do and will leave the discussion (if this can be called a discussion).
Now, have you ever listened to someone you have a hard time understanding? Since you don’t want to be rude, you politely wait/smile/laugh until he finishes before leaving the conversation.
Can you find similarities in these two situations? Even if the grass-root cause is not the same, the consequences are very similar: Despite trying to be courteous, one ends up being rude by waiting for the discussion to finish, but that’s at least (technically) politically correct.
Let’s see things from the other side now: Have you ever talked to someone you’re pretty sure doesn’t understand what you say? That’s unpleasant right? Even if you keep talking, you also just want that “discussion” to finish, because you don’t want to say “ok, it’s pretty clear you don’t understand, so let’s stop this now”. That’d be very rude.
Some communication theory
Many communication theories stress that, if somebody does not understand something, responsibility of that failure essentially lies on the one who was speaking. That can be true, especially when that person did not make efforts to be understood. But this reasoning has limits, as it can be hard for the speaker to detect the other just does not understand when the latter does not indicate he’s lost.
A discussion is made of two interlocutors
For a discussion to happen, there need to be two persons willing and able to both speak to the other and understand what he says. Otherwise, that’s called either a monologue or a dialogue of the deaf.
This means that both parties share responsibility in creating that discussion: Nicholas accurately points out that ES needs to speak slow and clearly enough to allow his interlocutor to understand. But it is essential that NES asks for clarification any time he does not understand something.
By failing to ask, NES becomes just as responsible as ES for that failure in communication, by not indicating he’s struggling and not indicating he is genuinely interested in the discussion by asking questions.
This means that the discussion is likely to be slowed down. But at least it will have the merit to exist, and that could just be an amazing improvement, as communication was just born.
Seat reversal
So far, we’ve only considered that ES was speaking and NES was listening.
Well, the exact same reasoning applies when NES struggles in making clear enough sentences for ES to understand. ES then must indicate that he did not understand and would benefit from the other to rephrase. ES is not being rude but on the contrary showing that he’s looking for enhanced communication.
Summary
- It is essential that both interlocutors speaks at a pace that allows his interlocutor to understand.
- It is just as important that they ask for clarification when they feels lost.
- No matter their level, no matter if they’re native-English speakers or not, both parties have the exact same responsibilities in creating a discussion.
Kevin Desprez