zlacker

A lot of Americans of any gender would be put off by a lot of very routine and candid professional communications that happen in Germany. I find American English in general to be tending toward the near universal avoidance of direct speech and statements, independent of speaker/listener identity.

Importantly the speaker and listener are not consciously aware of this happening. The net result is that you can say literal/plain thing A and the listener can hear literal/plain thing B.

Speaking to Americans requires a significantly accurate modeling of the listener's mind and expectations to be able to be clearly understood, much much moreso than any other language I have studied or even heard of.

Basically, it is very easy to be totally misunderstood when using plain, literal speech (such as is common in Germany or in Slavic countries).

I've written about it: https://sneak.berlin/20191201/american-communication/

>>sneak+(OP)
How does this play out in American companies with lots of employees from Europe and other places?

>>sneak+(OP)
Thank you for writing that article. I'm a native English speaker and I intend to speaker clearer because I read this.

>>bonobo+9b
I used to work for a company that has the standard "Meet Expectations" / "Exceeds Expectations" performance review every 6 month. Some European coworker felt the need to make a ppt titled 'euro-perf' to teach Europeans how to write performance feedback. Apparently words like "Good", "OK", "decent" etc meant slightly below median, and words like "Amazing" meant slightly above median for Americans. An European coworker also told me that he used to think a solid track record of Meet Expectations is very good and worthy of a promotion.

>>dispos+pf
Pleased to help speaker more clearer. That goal.

>>sneak+(OP)
Very interesting to read. I wonder if some of this is due to neutral statements in English tending to carry a negative connotation. If I say "I want to come over tomorrow but I'm not sure if I can make it" - that actually means "I do not want to come over tomorrow".

You /can't/ communicate without euphemisms, and trying to will always fail and make you seem like a dick even though you're just being straightforward. That is likely where the difficulty you've experienced comes from.

(For context, your exact situation occurred this weekend. I was invited to an event and said yes, but both me and my friend knew that I would not attend)

>>soared+Rj
You shouldn't lie in a response to an invitation.

>>qihqi+ug
Yeah I find American exaggeration (over-positivity) quite tiring. Good things become "amazing" and "literally the best ever". Even "great" is just around median in actual meaning. Everyone is "excited" to meet you and "thrilled" about whatever you say, wide smiles etc. Complaining about anything is a huge no-no, your life narrative must always be carefully crafted and anything slightly negative rephrased as a positive challenge and learning opportunity. Everyone is a hero sitting on a great exponential upward curve ahead of them. You are considered negative and a downer for just not buzzing all the time. Seems like people care even more about "saving face" than in East Asia.

>>bonobo+Al
It's really industry and region specific. Some parts of america are very direct.

>>sneak+el
We’re lost the formal flowery language of the English which was designed to communicate things like this more precisely - “I regret that I will be unable to attend but I appreciate the invitation and cherish our relationship” or similar.

>>soared+Rj
No, its cultural. Australians and Brits don't suffer from the same over-the-top positivity for positivity sake

>>Khaine+Xy
But Brits certainly do use the same kind of highly indirect non-literal phrasing. We're famous for it.

This reminded me of this infamous bit from Yes, Minister, and although it's not actually entirely an example of this, it's too good not to share now i've found it:

Sir Frederick: There are four words to be included in a proposal if you want it thrown out.

Sir Humphrey: Complicated. Lengthy. Expensive. Controversial. And if you want to be really sure that the Minister doesn't accept it, you must say the decision is "courageous".

Bernard: And that's worse than "controversial"?

Sir Humphrey: Oh, yes! "Controversial" only means "this will lose you votes". "Courageous" means "this will lose you the election"!

[1] https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5v4rhe?start=1100

>>sneak+el
I think you misunderstood? If the message being conveyed is understood by everyone involved it’s not a lie. Your post can claim the words are a lie I guess, but not in this culture.

>>bombca+5u
Modern English is perfectly capable of handling this.

"I can't make it, but I appreciate the offer."

>>sneak+(OP)
As an American concerned about the direction our language (and our culture) is headed in, realizing that there are places in the west that aren't like this is incredibly relieving.

>>twic+Vh1
Right, but brits don't use that language to puff people up.

There is a reason america is number 1 in confidence, but ranked 25th in math and 21st in science out of the top 30 developed countries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atkimTc_Pi4