The rise of “Globish”–English as it is spoken by non-native speakers–is the subject of a recent article in the Financial Times. What made the piece unusually illuminating is that it cogently challenges the complacency that native English speakers have about the world’s emerging lingua franca. (In other words, in the future all we’ll have to do to make ourselves clear to Johnny Foreigner will simply to speak a bit slower and a lot LOUDER.)

The kink in this account of the rise of English lies in the observation that “non-native speakers now outnumber native English-speakers by three to one.”

Such numbers mean that within international organization it is frequently the case that English is the medium of verbal communication even when there no native English speakers present. Moreover, “[many] business meetings held in English appear to run more smoothly when there are no native English-speakers present.”

Why?

“Native speakers are often poor at ensuring that they are understood in international discussions. They tend to think they need to avoid longer words, when comprehension problems are more often caused by their use of colloquial and metaphorical English.

Barbara Seidlhofer, professor of English and applied linguistics at the University of Vienna, says relief at the absence of native speakers is common. “When we talk to people (often professionals) about international communication, this observation is made very often indeed. We haven't conducted a systematic study of this yet, so what I say is anecdotal for the moment, but there seems to be very widespread agreement about it,” she says. She quotes an Austrian banker as saying: “I always find it easier to do business [in English] with partners from Greece or Russia or Denmark.

But when the Irish call, it gets complicated and taxing.”

I think what our Austrian friend fails to realise is that transparency of meaning is often the last thing an Irish person is aiming for when they start to talk.