What is precisely the problem when a non-native English writer lacks 'natural flow'?

Having read the writing of non-native English speakers on several occasions, it has always struck me how easily I can identify what is 'wrong' about a particular sentence without really determining why. For example, in this sentence:

You see the man clamp his fists hard, like he is trying to suppress some strong emotions.

I recognise on a basic level that clamp is improper usage and should be replaced with clench, but I'm not sure why I find "suppress some strong emotions" odd. It doesn't look grammatically incorrect to me, and yet it doesn't sound naturally phrased either. The use of 'like' here also feels strange--perhaps because the informal register of 'like' clashes with the literary tone of the sentence? (This was taken from a written narrative.)

Furthermore, there seems to be a difference between the naturalness of native and non-native English writing regardless of accuracy / correctness. Native speakers make grammatical mistakes that still register as ones made by native speakers, for instance. In contrast, the above sentence reads very much 'foreign'. So when a sentence doesn't sound natural, where does the problem lie?

Are there linguistic concepts and terms that allow me to properly discuss this phenomenon? (e.g. The lack of natural flow is due to "semantic confusion". "Syntactical errors" are also at work.) I would appreciate suggestions.

Solution 1:

I am not a native speaker, but the problem you described is true for any language. Having learnt English for a few years and still having hard time speaking idiomatically, I am starting to understand the key reasons behind it.

Neglecting semantics and being unaware of well-established and fixed phrases and collocations while finding target language counterparts of our native words and phrases

Let's suppose I want to say to put pressure on sb. I don't know how it would be in English. In my native tongue, this verb phrase is one single verb. I look it up in a dictionary and get: push, squeeze, jam, crush etc. If I were an ideal student I would do more research to find a verb or a phrase with the closest meaning possible, but doing extensive research for every single word takes much time. Laze and self-confidence overcome. I wishfully think this one is correct and I have seen it used in this context. Voila! I clamp my fists hard and hope it will pass and nobody will notice.

The rest ensues from the aforesaid.

Why does it happen?

Each language has its own established word use rules and fixed phrases which are not always logical and do not necessarily have direct counterparts in other languages. When it's your mother tongue, you absorb these peculiarities for years, you read a lot of books, listen to good language everyday - much more than a learner does. A learner's contact with the language is limited. It begins at school and boils down to a few hours a week at best. We have much less opportunities to embrace huge amount of language material a native speaker contacts with over the course of, say, first 15-20 years of their life when personality is formed and basic mental skills are developed.

Solution 2:

I'm not an expert in psychology or neurology, but I believe the reason is that effective reading (and listening) depends on the text following common grammatical patterns. The brain is constantly making unconscious predictions about where the text is going, and priming itself with the expected concepts. You don't have to read each word consciously, you read whole phrases at a time. When the text does not go where the mind is predicting, it forces more conscious attention to decode the meaning.

In the language of Daniel Kahneman, this is a System 1 versus System 2 distinction. Well written text can be read using the fast, intuitive methods of System 1; poorly written text requires use of the more deliberative System 2.

There are situations where this is intentional -- many forms of jokes and wordplay are based on using words and phrases in unusual ways. But in the case of normal prose, it simply gets in the way of easy understanding.

To see the normal process in action, try reading a book. When you're about to turn the page, guess what word or phrase will be at the beginning of the next page. If the book is well written, I expect you'll be correct the vast majority of the time. When you're reading normally, your mind has already assumed this continuation while you're turning the page, and all it has to do is confirm its assumption as you start scanning the next page.

Solution 3:

HAVING MADE made many small changes to replace those elements in your sample sentence that have odd word choice or syntax and thus hinder natural flow, this is what I think a native writer of English would produce:

He clenched his fists, as though (he were) attempting to suppress some strong emotion.

This sentence is itself rather old-fashioned, and reminds me of the dramatic/gothic style in Dr. Jekyll, Dorian Gray and Sherlock Holmes. If you compare this with the original sentence, you could figure out where the writing of non-natives can differ from that of native English speakers.

As I am a non-native speaker of English myself, your question is indeed intriguing, and I think I am in a unique position (relative to native speakers) to provide not only personal insight but also some context as to how a non-native speaker learns the language very differently from native speakers, which leads to a different style of writing and possibly 'lack of natural flow.'

Please note that I am from India, which has been closely associated with Britain for over 300 years, and has therefore become very much an anglophone country, where English is the second language of a vast section of the population, an official language of all arms of the government, and the medium of higher education. Therefore we have had unique opportunities to learn the language at a higher standard from a relatively young age, with all its attendant benefits including the chance to improve our vocabulary and language by wide reading from an earlier age, and thus for more years.

The biggest difference between native and non-native learners is (usually) that the native learner learns the spoken language first, absorbing all its nuances from infancy, while the non-native learner starts with the written language, not speaking English at home (or even at school other than as part of learning grammar or reading aloud from textbooks) except in rare cases.

This difference affects 'natural flow' in the writing of non-native speakers as follows:

A. Even with extensive knowledge of book English and the ability to maintain correct grammar and usage, their writing can appear stiff, formal and 'stilted', lacking the nuance, 'ear for dialogue' and natural grace that native speakers easily bring to their written work.

B. The syntax and grammar of non-native speakers and writers is often strongly influenced by the syntax and grammar (and even idioms) of their native language(s), so that a lot of of artifacts/ minor errors/ odd usage can creep into their written work in a subtle way. In effect the person is likely to be unconsciously thinking in the native language and simultaneously translating into English, which affects both speech and writing.

I think this is sufficient to affect the natural narrative flow and create linguistic unease in the reader, thereby obstructing an immersive interaction with the written work.

[This is not a quotation; I have simply highlighted the most important part of my answer for easy reference.]

Members are invited to critique the text, writing style and 'natural flow' of this answer, treating it as a sample of written work from a well-educated and well-read non-native speaker of English for the purposes of this question, and provide your invaluable insights in comments.

(Note 2: The development of our spoken English is badly affected by the lack of opportunity to speak English at an early age, the dominant culture of the mother tongue, and the severe lack of exposure to native speakers; thus my own written English is much stronger than the spoken form, but that is a very different topic which is beyond the scope of this question.)