Once upon a time, in the late 10th century, Ælfric of Eynsham, a prolific Anglo-Saxon scholar described the creation of the first two humans in these terms:
God gesceop þa æt fruman twegen men, wer and wif
In modern English it reads like this:
God created then at the beginning two persons,a male and a female
You don't need to be a trained philologist to realize that in the 10th century the word men meant persons (or human beings). Isn't it interesting? Back then, if you wanted to refer to a "male human", the standard word was wer, which is still present in the compound werewolf and is connected to the Latin term vir. The original meaning of wif was simply "female human" (and sometimes "wife"). In fact, the very word woman comes from wif-man: literally "female-person". Eventually, of course, the meaning of the word man changed. In other Germanic languages, however, it evolved differently, which is why modern German uses it as a gender-neutral pronoun (man) that refers to an unspecific subject: man spricht deutsch means, quite simply, German is spoken. But that is a different story.
There is nothing shocking or new about any of the above. Linguists have known all this for centuries. So why am I discussing it now? Well, because today is International Women's Day and I think it is a great opportunity to stop and consider the relationship between language and thoughts. Some argue that, when it comes to considering a person's thinking process, words are nothing short of cosmetic. To that I counter that words help us shape our thoughts. Siri Hustvedt once remarked "words matter because they alter perception" (or words to that effect). Whether we find it logical or not, the fact is that speakers react differently when labels are changed. A case in point can be found in U.S. politics. The labels Affordable Care Act and Obamacare designate the very same federal law, but elicit radically different reactions from voters. I don't think I need to explain why.
And that leads us to a phenomenon that is usually called "social marking". Social marking (you guessed it) is the process by which a speech community imposes sociocultural assumptions onto words. As far as gender is concerned, the most obvious examples of social marking is the proclivity to ascribe a particular gender to a particular job. When we hear words such as plumber or thief we overwhelmingly picture a man. When we come across terms like nurse or flight attendant we tend to think of a woman. Needless to say, those four words are gender-neutral. The marking, therefore, is not grammatical, but rather psychological. I think we can all learn to reverse that situation by mistrusting our own impulses even when reality does reinforce our initial assumption (most flight attendants are indeed female and most thieves happen to be men).
My personal view is that we've come a long way since the days when the idea of a female surgeon was literally inconceivable. Proof of that is the fact that whenever I come across terms like judge, architect or astronaut I honestly don't have a clear picture as to the gender of the person in question. I suspect that this inability to ascribe a particular gender to a profession is actually backed up by reality. I would say that it means we're making progress. Wouldn't you?
In his quirky prose book Juan de Mairena, Spanish poet Antonio Machado evoked a fictional scene where a teacher asks a pupil to give a literary polish to a ridiculously convoluted phrase. The phrase in question was the consuetudinary occurrences which transpire upon the thoroughfare [my translation]. A clever student was quick to offer a "poetic" version of that atrocity: What happens in the street, said the kid.By means of such an unlikely anecdote, Machado sought to point out the fact that efficient expression should dispense with unnecessary flourishes and stick to the its substance. Literary language is not about throwing together fancy words.
I mention this because experience has shown me that many C1 hopefuls tend to be catastrophically misguided. They seem to fall for the myth that hyper-accurate vocabulary is the only hallmark of a pro. Well... I regret to report that it is not. A certain degree of accuracy is obviously needed, but an English learner shouldn't depend solely on lexical precision to show their advanced competency. In fact, an accumulation of unusual terms (however accurate they might be) is often counterproductive. On his late night show, Stephen Colbert, customarily proves this very point during every introduction of his "Meanwhile" segment, which typically consists in an extended metaphor packed with infrequent terms that (to the uninitiated ears) sound like utter gibberish. Just watch the first 42 seconds of the video below and you'll realize what I mean.
What we, advanced learners, ought to aim for is range and efficiency. And yes. Oftentimes efficiency is closely linked to the ability to be succinct. Compare these two phrases:
an experience that you have only one time in your life (B2)
a once-in-a-lifetime experience (C1)
But conciseness alone doesn't necessarily entail efficiency. Sometimes the expression that produces the desired effect is actually longer than the direct simple one. This is particularly true when we want to paint a vivid picture. Compare the following sentences:
It's easy (A1)
It's not rocket science (C1)
They clearly mean the same thing, but the impact on the listener is noticeably different. In this specific case efficiency relies on the speaker's ability to use a conventional expression (rocket science) and, therefore, to sound natural. Compare now the different ways you can say that something or someone is "tough":
That's a tough needle to thread
That's a tough pill to swallow
She's tough as nails
She's a tough cookie
It's like pulling teeth
It's an uphill battle
Being efficient is all about "getting the job done" without unnecessary words. Sometimes you need an accurate term ("She castled kingside"). On other occasions, you just focus on relaying the message in a way that is interesting, funny, spontaneous, exotic or simply appropriate. Don't get too hung up about the mot juste. Using the perfect word can indeed give you a wonderful sense of achievement, but it can also turn out to be rather pointless. If you don't believe me, ask an average native speaker about the exact difference between a washer and a gasket or even the meaning of mot juste.
One of the regrettable consequences of the digital revolution was the lowering of reading standards. In the early years of the Internet companies were quick to realize that published texts had to be short, punchy and fresh. Nuance, however, often demands more complex prose and "big words", which offer specific shades of meaning (compare the term strange with some of its hyponyms: quirky, outlandish, weird, eccentric, etc.). These days, with readability being the ultimate metric, many webmasters still choose to publish a simplified form of prose that barely challenges a middle-school reader. And I this is by no means a rhetorical overstatement, but rather a hard fact. The 12-year-old reading age has really become the global benchmark for most websites. And if you don't believe me feel free to take a peek at the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.
I understand that it is often necessary to make sure that nobody is excluded from certain types of information. However, constant exposure to child-level comprehension comes with a price. These days a surprising number of Internet users don't seem to take offense when an article is obviously simple. They actually appreciate the effortless reading and neglect to notice that they are being patronized. Needless to say there's a downside to that convenience: many adults today can't "read between the lines". They don't understand irony, perceive allusions or realize a change in tone. In short, they fail to act as adults. And, as a self-defense mechanism they will downplay a weak speaker's shortcomings and call accomplished orators elitists.
But what happens when a situation calls for nuanced communication? Think about the type of language a neurologist, a financial advisor, a diplomat or a president are expected to use when they act in a professional capacity. Is it acceptable for a doctor be flippant about a dire prognosis? Is there a casual way to address a nation after a terrorist attack?
As I have said before on this blog, the sitting president of the U. S. A. represents the nadir of expression. His entire world seems to be compressed into 500 words. Okay. Maybe more than 500. At any rate, there is overwhelming consensus that his speaking style is an exercise in lexical poverty. You will forgive me for sharing an excerpt of a recent speech by Mr. Trump, which is by no means an isolated anecdote. It is a grim daily standard:
We want respect. We're going to have it. We already have it. More respected now than we ever were. A year and a half ago they laughed at us. Now they respect us again at levels that never respected us.
Of course, it could be argued that even a person operating within such a remarkably narrow word range can still "go places". And that argument might indeed be hard to counter. Yet, as an English teacher, it is my duty to remind you all of the fact that an official examiner will not be as lenient as some voters seem to be in the U.S. Advanced learners ought to do far better than Mr. Trump, which is why I have decided to show you three structures that exceed the capabilities of an average 12-year-old. Check them out:
Impersonal sentences
12-year-old: Everyone helps pay for our doctors and hospitals through their taxes.
Advanced learner: Our healthcare system is funded through taxation.
12-year-old: We should have our own opinions and not follow the opinions of others.
Advanced learner: Developing a personal worldview requires intellectual autonomy, not the passive acceptance of prevailing doctrines.
Subjects which begin with a wh-word
12-year-old: It’s impossible to understand why he is still famous.
Advanced learner: Why he is still relevant is incomprehensible.
Modifiers before the relative pronoun
12-year-old: We should worry more about our students' health because more than 70% of them aren't getting enough exercise.
Advanced learner: We should consider the health of our students 73% of whom do not take regular exercise.
I could, of course, suggest many other examples, but I think this sample is illustrative enough. Remember that even if a sophisticated speaker doesn't need to speak like a fusty old professor all the time, he or she should be able to "run the spectrum" so they can say something basic (She is not going to be famous forever) and then something slightly more nuanced (Is she aware of the ephemeral nature of public adulation?) and, if need be, try and be funny or mysterious or comically pompous. I believe the message is clear. You're an adult. Talk like one.
_________________
N.B. To those of you that think that the video above was a cherry-picked example of Trumpian inarticulateness I suggest you watch the video below. It is an AI-generated clip created to dispense with Donald Trump's voice, his quirks and mannerisms, so that you can concentrate on what he actually says. Bear in mind that this is an unedited word-for-word version of what he said.
Phonetics is not a subject at school. Once in a while it may be touched upon by some eager teachers, but, to the best of my knowledge, most students graduate from high school without ever learning about devoiced consonants or central vowels. Yet, in English-speaking countries a version of phonetics is indeed taught to children when they learn to read. They are told, for example, that the sequence[əʊ] is a "long vowel" and that the vocalic sounds in closed syllables like god or bed are "short vowels". Okay. That is clearly not the case. The dipthong [əʊ] obviously consists of two vowels, namely, a schwa [ə] and a "lax u"[ʊ]. Yes. Two vowels. *
However, English-speaking teachers customarily tell their pupils that a vowel is "long" when they pronounce the name of the letter. So, the vowel in the word name, for example, is "long" because the "a" is pronounced as [ei], whereas the vowel in tack is short. That clever rule of thumb doesn't always work, though. The wordgoat (pronounced[ɡəʊd]in the UK and [ɡoʊd] in the US) is spelled with two letters which, quite obviously, don't have one name. Still, the dipthong in the middle of that word is described as a "long vowel". Even if the explanation is quite messy (it mixes up letters and sounds), I understand that it can be useful in primary school classrooms. That said, to adults who are learning English in Italy or Spain, the whole thing can be extremely confusing.
And not only to foreigners. In a 2025 interview with Stephen Colbert, Daniel Craig was persnickety enough to point out that Colbert used to mispronounce his lastname. As you will hear in the video below, the correct pronunciation of the surname Craig demands that the speaker pronounce a dipthong [ei], not an "open e" [Ɛ]. However, Colbert finds (or pretends to find) the difference a little too "subtle". To me it's quite clear. Is it obvious to you?
Anyhow, if I'm blogging about this issue it's because there is a takeaway for all of you. Bear with me for a minute.
When English speakers learn Spanish they typically struggle to pronounce our so-called "clipped vowels". They tend to say [nəʊ] or [noʊ] instead of simply [no]. For the same reason they say ['balei] instead of [ba'le] when they learn French. How is this all relevant to you? Well, my dear Spanish speakers, you have the "reverse" problem. Most varieties of Spanish lack long vowels. By "long vowels" I'm referring to real long vowels such as the first [a] in the Argentinian pronunciation of Bárbara. Therefore a typical Spanish speaker will have serious difficulty pronouncing the English word father, whose vowel [a:] is slightly longer than the one we find in fad. ** Now, if you want to perfect your pronunciation you may have to polish your English vowels. I suggest you start by practising simple phrases, like let's go to a bar. Remember that the vowel in the word bar is a tiny little bit longer that its Spanish equivalent. I won't say anything about the quality of the vowel or the pronunciation or the [r]. This post is about vocalic length.
Does this make any sense? I certainly hope so. As ever, my advice is simple: practice the pronunciation of everyday words like car, bar or garden and one day you'll be able to deliver the legendary reveal in The Empire Strikes Back: "No, I am your faaaaather".
_________________________________
* I know. I know. The term "lax u" is not scientific, but you will forgive me for not using the technical denomination. In my opinion mid-centralized close back rounded vowel is a bit of a mouthful.
** I know. I know. The "a" in fad represents a completely different sound, but I'm only talking about the length here.
In my previous post I dealt with gun and horse metaphors and insinuated that some idioms can become "dead expressions" insofar as they don't evoke a particular picture. That is most certainly the case of lexicalized metaphors. Unless you are an accomplished etymologist, you might not be notice that the very word metaphor is, in fact, a metaphor itself. It happens to mean "to transfer", which derives from meta (farther) and pharein (take). Similarly, when a computer programmer mentions a firewall or a political pundit refers to a cordon sanitaire, they are using lexicalized metaphors. You typically say those words without visualizing what they say or giving a second thought to their respective origins. And that can, sometimes, be problematic.
Indeed, sooner or later, an overabundance of expressions that revolve around one specific topic end up setting a particular tone which is ultimately perceived even by speakers with questionable metalinguistic awareness. You don't need to be a lexicographer to realize that many common expressions in the business world bristle with an unequivocally aggressive tone. And if you have never remarked that... just think about for a second.
When you "target a demographic" you are effectively directing a metaphoric weapon to that population and if you "launch a marketing campaign" you act like a field marshal during a war. In the business world intense competition is "cutthroat". When you finalize a deal you "go in for the kill". Hiring someone that is already working for a different company is called "headhunting" To motivate a team you "rally the troops". When you make progress against a competitor you "gain ground" (just like you do when you invade a country). To do something secretly you do it "under the radar". When you make a lot of money over a short period of time you "make a killing". And the list goes on and on.
So, if you would rather avoid belligerent vocabulary, you might be glad to learn that there are indeed plenty of alternatives you can use without sounding amateurish. Instead of "targeting a demographic", for example, you can "cater to a demographic" or "focus on it" or "engage with it", "appeal to it", even "seek to resonate with it". The list is not short. Having said that, I am aware that you can't really speak the professional jargon if you always avoid those well-established expressions. Such is life.
At any rate, it is not only war metaphors that can compel you to look for friendlier alternatives. Personal taste can also make you reconsider the use of certain idioms. And no. You don't have to be a hypersensitive snowflake to feel ambivalent about the sound of some traditional turns of phrase. Take the case of animal-related idioms. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people in 2026 don't like animals being mistreated. And yet, dictionaries are not always kind to our furry friends. A very popular expression goes like this: "there's not enough room to swing a cat". It is, of course, a colorful way of saying "this place is very small". Unfortunately it plants a mental picture that a cat lover might not appreciate. For similar reasons, someone who likes horses might take issue with the expression "it's like beating a dead horse" (meaning "it's useless") and so on and so forth. You get the picture.
Okay. Let's assume you don't like those expressions. What do you do? The answer is obvious: you use an alternative. Instead of mentioning any kind of cat-swirling you say "it's a bit of a tight squeeze" or "there's barely enough elbow room". As for the phrase about the dead horse, you can remain idiomatic and avoid the mental image of someone flogging a cadaver by simply saying "we're going in circles" or "we're spinning our wheels" or (should the context call for a more elevated register) "there's no need to labor the point". And, of course, you can always go idiom-free and say "this is pointless" or "this leads nowhere".
The bottom line here is clear: you should try and make sure that you have many options at the ready. That way you won't have to mention a dead horse when you find an activity pointless or refer to murder when you finally get a client to sign a contract. Also, by making personal decisions you will shape a speaking style that reflects your own worldview, which is what building an idiolect is all about: developing your own personality. Now, go out there and use some idioms. Happy practice!
A couple of weeks ago, when the Louisville police chief reported a significant drop in the city's 2025 crime rates, he said the following:
When we look at the end of the year last year compared to 24 you can see, when it comes to crime, we're down all across the board and that's exactly what we are shooting for. Homicide is down 21%, fatal shootings, non-fatal shootings, carjackings, all those are down. They're going in the right direction.
I'm not sure that a police chief saying "that's exactly what we're shooting for" displays good judgment (unless he's trying to be funny, which he probably shouldn't), but I understand that he was simply using a common expression. After all, when you go after something with determination, you "shoot for it" or even gun for it.
Still, I think we can agree that he could have gone down a different road. So... What could he have said? An obvious alternative would have been "this is what we were aiming for". Of course, if you're a little thin-skinned you may also object to that phrase given that you take aim at something when you mean to hit it with a stone, an arrow or a bullet. So, the question remains: can we have a non-ballistic, less hostile way of conveying the same meaning? Absolutely. How about "that was exactly our goal"? It is true that it lacks the punchy quality of "shooting for something", but it does get the message across. How about "that was the plan all along" or "that was our objective from the outset"or even "that's what we were going for from the word go". As you see, the options are always there.
Anyway, if I'm discussing that police officer's word choice is because it gives me us an opportunity to explore the wonderful world of metaphors. So, if you can spare a few minutes, bear with me as I look into gun-themed expressions, which are extremely popular in English. You won't regret it. I am well aware that some of you might be reluctant to use them, but the truth is you can't call yourself an advanced learner if you don't understand them. So, here goes.
Guns
The way I see it, a truly advanced learner should know that (in the U.S) the person occupying the front passenger seat of a vehicle "rides shotgun". Indisputable evidence is usually referred to as "a smoking gun". If you manage to avoid a catastrophe, you "dodge a bullet". If you decide to finally do something unpleasant that you have put off then you "bite the bullet". Someone unpredictable and dangerous is a "loose cannon". An attempt with low probability of success is "a long shot". If a person is honest and direct, they are "a straight shooter". If you start something before the appropriate time you "jump the gun". When you react without careful consideration you "shoot from the hip". The person who controls a situation "calls the shots". I could go on...
Obviously, every language has its own preferences and built-in biases, which typically crystallize in proverbs, idioms and all kinds of expressions. I, for one, have always felt that colloquial Spanish has a penchant for religious references, whereas in German there is a surprising number of everyday expressions that mention farm animals. Why that is the case I honestly don't know. After all, religion and farming have been central to the histories of both Spain and Germany. Whatever the reasons behind those preferences might be, the fact of the matter is that a competent Spanish speaker is expected to understand the expression "he is not a saint I pray to" and an advanced German learner should also know what "I've had pig" means. In case you're wondering, "no es santo de mi devoción" means "I'm not a fan of his" and "Ich habe Schwein gehabt" is a colloquial of saying "I got lucky".
Being aware of such biases gives you the chance to consider alternatives, enrich your vocabulary and shape your own a personality in English, which ideally will also make you aware of the areas where we can all meet. One such case is the expressions that revolve around horses.
Horses
Spanish is, indeed, packed with horse metaphors ("perder los estribos", "ser ligero de cascos", "dar rienda suelta a tus pensamientos", "atar en corto", etc.) and, guess what, so is German ("arbeiten wie ein Pferd", "Rossnatur", "das Pferd von hintem aufzäumen", "mit ihm kann man Pferde stehlen", etc.). Unsurprisingly English is also no stranger to that vocabulary area. In fact, we can find a myriad of horse-themed expressions. Check out this sample list:
to eat like a horse
to come down to the wire
neck and neck
to put the cart before the horse
get off your high horse!
straight from the horse's mouth
don't look a gifted horse
to be a dark horse
hold your horses
to horse around
a one-trick pony
I don't have a horse in that race
Even an expression like to win "hands down" (which I mentioned in my previous post) is connected with horse races. How? When a jockey is really far ahead the rest of the horses, he or she can drop their hands and relax the reins way before reaching the finish line. They literally win (with their) hands down. Interesting, right?
And while that particular horse expression is only used in English, many others have enjoyed a kind of success that might feel even excessive. Take the English proverb "never look a gift horse in the mouth". I really don't know where that saying originated, but I know for a fact that it is now ubiquitous. We find it in Spanish ("a caballo regalado no le mires el diente"), in German ("einem geschenktem Gaul schaut man nicht ins Maul"), in French ("à cheval donné on ne regarde pas les dents"), in Italian ("a caval donato no si guarda in bocca"). In fact it pops up in just about every European language. And if you're skeptical about it, take a peek at this website from Centro Virtual Cervantes, where you can see that very expression in up to 22 languages.
So... horses, unlike guns, feature prominently in day-to-day conversations in many European countries, which should come as no surprise given that horses have been a part of most Europeans' lives for centuries. I suppose that Arabic and Urdu must have their fair share of horse idioms. Anyway, the great thing about horse expressions is that they offer a common ground to all of us. They make up an area we can always rely on. They also remind us that languages are complex, multifaceted systems, which over time become the memory of a whole culture. And English metaphors deal with all kinds of areas: sports, music, physics, mythology, war, pop culture, plants, you name it... So, if you should find an English expression that feels a tad too "exotic" or that makes you uncomfortable (for whatever reason), just remember that you can always find an equally valid alternative to paint a different picture.
Now, if you will excuse me, I'm going to stop blogging and grab some breakfast. I'm so hungry I could eat a horse. Oops...
At this point I believe the whole English-speaking world is well aware that the United States of America have a president whose vocabulary rarely ventures beyond the basic level of competence. His battleships are big, very big, the biggest you've ever seen and the bills he wants Congress to pass are, well... big and beautiful. Literally. The thing is... even if you state that a warship is huge, colossal, gargantuan or gigantic you'll be using A1-level grammar (i.e. it is). Are those adjectives "advanced"? Absolutely. Does the whole sentence sound advanced? Not really. Not to a discerning English teacher, anyway.
When it comes to descriptions, one of the obvious advanced skills consists in choosing the right synonym for the right term. So, a majority can be vast, a distance astronomical, the universe immense, an appetite gargantuan, a struggle titanic, a dose massive, and so on and so forth. It would be weird to say that your appetite is vast and your weight is astronomical. How do you know which collocations work and which don't? At first, you just don't, but after stumbling across one adjective a number of times a pattern typically emerges and oft-repeated combinations become recognizable. That is what conventions are all about. If you want to be a writer you'll have to steer clear of those shopworn phrases, but an English learner should not attempt to "go creative". If your ultimate goal is the C2 certificate, then you're only expected to master the conventions. I am well aware that the process is quite time-consuming, but, trust me, there is no other way to learn lexical conventions. You just bump into them and then start using them.
Today, though, I'd like to point out something a lot easier than getting exposed to thousands of collocations. I only want to show you how you can turn a simple phrase into a truly advanced expression just by adding a couple of words. Don't believe me? Check out the examples below. The sentence in bold is basic (A2), but the text in brackets elevates it to C2 heaven.
He fought (tooth and nail)
He lied (through his teeth)
She passed the exam (with flying colors)
She is the best (hands down)
I'm waiting (with bated breath)
They fell for it (hook, line and sinker)
Do you see how simple it can be? The words in brackets add spice, vividness and, of course, meaning. Think about the first one. "He fought" is a neutral statement. "He fought tooth and nail", however, gives a completely different vibe. It forces you to picture the desperation and intensity of a visceral struggle. You've got no other weapons but your teeth and fingernails. That's a back-against-the-wall situation. In Spanish we happen to have the same idiom: "luchar con uñas y dientes" and a phrase which evokes a similar vibe: "defenderse como gato panza arriba".
I hope my point is clear. Anyway, the next time you come across a sentence with a similar "add-on", remember that those extra words truly make the difference between A2 and C2.
J. R. R. Tolkien, author of The Lord of the Rings (1955), created the Elvish languages Sindarin and Quenya specifically to sound beautiful. Marc Okrand, however, developed Klingon with a radically different intent. Harve Bennett, the producer of Stark Trek: The Search for Spock (1984) had asked him to create an alien tongue that met two criteria: it should sound both extraterrestrial and ugly. Twenty years later, during the pre-production of Avatar (2008), linguist Paul Frommer was commissioned to engineer another language. This one should be both alien and beautiful. Na'vi was the result of that request. Whether their endeavors were successful or not is a matter of debate. I suspect, though, that most opinions probably concur that Sindarin and Na'vi do have a nice feel to them whereas Klingon sounds quite aggressive to most ears. Needless to say, the members of the Klingon Language Institute find their favorite tongue quite appealing and, conversely, some people unfamiliar perhaps with the Avatar universe might question the beauty of Na'vi. As the saying goes, there is no accounting for taste.
Natural languages, however, also elicit all kinds of reactions. Obviously, they were not developed with an intention to sound ugly or beautiful. Yet, they are often perceived in those terms. We know that the alleged aesthetic virtues of a language are not necessarily connected with the language itself, but rather depend on personal feelings about the culture that these languages happen to represent. The Hebrew language, for instance, is often described as "beautiful" by deeply religious people, whereas more impartial observers might struggle to appreciate its supposed euphony or even distinguish its phonetic profile from that of other Middle Eastern tongues. Similarly, French has been consistently associated with glamour and sophistication and the loanwords that English has borrowed from French are a testament to that attitude. Is the phrase joie de vivre truly more complex that the analogous "joy of living"? For equally arbitrary reasons we find a host of deep-seated stereotypes around other European languages. Thus we often hear that German is harsh, Italian is sweet and Russian is serious. And while those opinions might be innocuous, the associations that they entail are most certainly not.
An accent that is perceived to be unfriendly will be a liability at a job interview and one that is typically linked to a lack of sophistication will be uncommon at the reception of a five-star hotel. The traits of the speaker's alleged culture are magically transferred onto the pronunciation and intonation of the dialect that he or she speaks. And this happens to accents within a language and, of course, to accents that come from outside the English-speaking world. I know. It's not fair.
Regional and social accents
In the U. S. accents are, by and large, geographical. In the United Kingdom, though, things are a lot trickier. Accents can indeed be regional, but also social. And by that I mean that your consonants and vowels can be deemed to be working class, middle class, upper-middle class or insufferably posh. And if you think that I'm exaggerating, I'm afraid you are gravely mistaken. British politicians of patrician origins have been rumored to take elocution classes to soften their elitist accents in order to be more appealing to voters of less privileged backgrounds. I don't know how much of that is true. It is not an unreasonable notion. After all, an Oxbridge accent is far from relatable to the average waiter or mechanic. The crazy thing about it is that sometimes differences between accents may come down to individual sounds.
In Ian McEwan's novel What We Can Know (2025), the narrator of the second part says the following:
At last, the boy lifted his drooping and well-fingered companion closer to his chest. It was a green lizard with red spikes along its spine. "I'm waiting for my mummy." In that English way, I automatically registered the fully enunciated "t" and was already placing him in a social order, I disliked myself for it.
Think about it for a second. Just the pronunciation of one consonant can place you in a social hierarchy. Imagine what type of impact full sentences may have on a casual listener, let alone someone working for a recruiting firm.
Learners of English
To you, avid English learner, regional accents are probably not a major concern. Still, I believe that you should strive to achieve an accent that is, first and foremost, understandable and then (in so far as possible) close to some standard variety of the language, be it general General American, standard British English or, even some form of International English. Why? Because a speaker with a strong foreign accent will inevitably trigger unconscious ideas of unsophistication, not to mention the various prejudices that the culture in question entails. A native-like accent, on the other hand, brings about a priceless sense of at-homeness amongst competent speakers. Now... I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with having a foreign accent. I'll repeat that. There is nothing wrong with having a foreign accent. That said, we must acknowledge that not all accents are perceived equally and many of those reactions tend to be shaped by factors that are beyond your control. That much should be uncontroversial.
Also remember that two non-native speakers that use English as a lingua franca will have serious difficulty understanding each other if they don't try and find some common ground (i.e. some kind of standard pronunciation). Just imagine a Cambodian and an Italian having a conversation in English. If they stick to the phonological inventories of their respective mother tongues misunderstandings are bound to ensue. I still remember the case of a Spanish student of mine who was vacationing in Thailand with a group of friends. One day my student picked up the phone, called the front desk and requested two cars. As it happens, the group had decided to spend the day driving around the countryside. Minutes later a hotel employee showed up at the door holding a sugar pot. Two cars. Sugar.
Interestingly enough, the consequences of having a marked foreign accent can be quite unexpected. Actress Sofia Vergara, for example, speaks English with a strong Colombian accent that has served her well in Hollywood. Americans love it. They find it cute and sexy. Film director Wener Herzog, however, has a German accent that can sound unappealing or even intimidating. But that's not all. Sometimes identical accents can elicit strikingly disparate reactions. Thus, Slavoj Žižek, a well-known public intellectual who speaks with a pronounced Slovenian accent, comes off as likeable whereas Melania Trump, another Slovenian with a heavy accent, is generally perceived as unsophisticated despite the fact that she used to have a glamorous job and is now the first lady of the United States of America. I suppose that blunders such as her notorious mispronunciation of the word corps while addressing a group of marines at a military base haven't helped much.
It can be argued that, more often than not, it is the personalities of the individuals that determine how their respective accents are perceived. After all, Sofia Vergara is funny and sexy and Werner Herzog can have a menacing gaze. And, obviously, Slavoj Žižek is a philosopher who often displays cognitive resources that Melania Trump doesn't seem to possess. To all that, I would counter that prejudices die hard. Part of a person's reaction to a foreign speaker does indeed depend on their personal qualities, but there's a part of that first reaction that has little or nothing to do with the speaker's demeanor and a lot with how they say things. And if we are to believe that the first cut is the deepest, then we should consider the very first thing most people think about when they hear a random stranger speak with a thick foreign accent. Usually it's not the complexity of their grammar or the accuracy of their vocabulary, but rather the culture associated with that particular accent.
If you are still skeptical about all this I recommend that you watch the video below in which English actress Miriam Margolyes (of Harry Potter fame) explains why she sometimes chooses to speak with a Scottish accent. That says all you need to know about accent-related biases.
These days everyone seems to have an opinion about a surprisingly wide range of topics. I suppose that some version of this has always existed. But a couple of years ago came the game changer. The advent of digital platforms elevated individual thought to surreal heights as a result of which personal views now reach audiences in a way that was unthinkable before the digital revolution. These days we all get to see, hear and read opinions on all kinds of subject matters divulged by phony polymaths. In English there is a word for those individuals: ultracrepidarian. I know. Nobody knows the term... Still, the ironic consequence of this state of affairs is that most of those who engage in dialogue don't seem to perceive the difference between idle chatter and a truly productive exchange.
Opinions
Indeed, the borders between meaningful conversation and small talk have been blurred to the point where many speakers simply can't tell them apart. And you don't need to be a specialist in epistemology to realize that many internet pundits that actually interview guests on their channels are dismally ignorant of the art of conversation and, therefore, ill-equipped to attempt any form of debate. Nevertheless, some of those individuals (usually self-styled influencers) keep posting, tweeting, podcasting and often talking to interesting thinkers in the delusional belief that their views are just as valid as those of bona fide experts. Some of them go so far as to join panel discussions and debates!
I understand that some public speakers give off a certain aura, a charisma (that most intangible of qualities), which, in the eyes of unenlightened observers, can make up for their lack of substance. However, when it comes to serious subjects, a person's good looks, sophisticated manners, personal style and the number of followers on Instagram become utterly irrelevant. We need more. After all, an opinion is not worth much if it is not backed up by facts.
Debates
And yet, countless videos depict interactions where speakers simply disagree. The titles of these clips often use the term 'destroy' (as in "[Name of Random Guy] Destroys [Name of Celebrity]"), implying that one debater has left the other speechless. In reality, these exchanges are frequently just a clash of views with no actual debating.
Contrary to some people's assumptions, debating does not consist in simply opposing an adversary's views for public entertainment. It is supposed to be a regulated discussion. For starters it requires factual information. That much should be obvious. Before someone forms an opinion about the rate of unemployment, for instance, they ought to know the actual rate of unemployment. The figure in question (11.5 % in Spain at the time of writing this post) is objective, the debater's opinion, by definition, is not. Debating also demands that a participant be ready to concede a point, that is to say, to acknowledge the merit of someone else's views and contemplate the possibility of being wrong. So, if you are not prepared to be fact-checked or proven wrong, you should probably steer clear of debates and stick to casual banter and private conversations.
Conversations
Why? Because conversations are far easier. They don't need rules, timers or moderators. Like a debate, though, a good conversation does entail the use of some objective information and/or references that go beyond personal anecdote. Still, it is a flexible category. Two good conversationalists may well exchange experiences and points of view, but will ineluctably gravitate towards a discussion that, of necessity, involves arguments. And it's there that things get slightly hairy. Arguments are based on facts, which, of course, are articulated by logic. Therefore a misinformed speaker with a feeble grasp on the basics of logic is, quite simply, not a good conversationalist.
What I'm trying to say is that verbal interaction based on personal views is fine for a quick coffee, but a real conversation is a little bit more demanding than that, and a debate is probably best left to the experts.
At any rate, whether you're just chatting to pass the time or striving for self-enlightenment, I think you should ensure that your arguments are always anchored in fact. Otherwise your words will not be worth much. Sadly, though, (and this is clearly my opinion) we live in a society in which a shocking number of people seem to disregard facts, which probably explains why the term post-truth was chosen as the Oxford Dictionary word of the year in 2016. To me that symbolic decision was, in itself, an indictment of the increasing irrelevance of facts in public discourse. These days, it is common for people to gloss over their own ignorance. When confronted with facts, they will typically deflect, trivialize objective data and elicit emotional responses from listeners who also run roughshod over reality. It's a lose-lose game.
On the opposite end of that spectrum we find Sam Harris, a well-spoken public figure who excels at crafting coherent thoughts and compelling arguments. He routinely uses complex syntax and precise vocabulary in an effortless way, which is a far cry from the proverbial word salads that fill the speeches of many self-appointed experts. That alone should be a good enough reason to listen to him.
In the video below Sam Harris offers great material for any advanced English learner: an efficient analogy (tennis), interesting terms (diverge, intent, align, tap out) as well as a useful collocation (to pressure-test one's views). Not bad for a 60-second clip, right? Also, the point he makes is thought-provoking: if you're not prepared to find common ground or be proven wrong, you should not engage in any form of debate. Chit-chat is probably your trade.
