How does this editorial appear to native speakers?

[kumar17]

Vaccine drive: On India's COVID-19 vaccine policy.


Fine theories and good policies are often frustrated in their encounter with facts and implementation processes in the field. India’s COVID-19 vaccine policy, recently unveiled, must take care not to head that way, and make adequate allowances for ground realities that could render naught well-laid plans. With a definitive cure not yet available for COVID-19, vaccines present the world with the best strategy to slow the virus down in its tracks along with a measure of vested herd immunity, as SARS-CoV-2 rampages on. While it may not be the magic wand, vaccinating people will be the only known way of slowing the march of the virus, and every country, down to each county, must prepare for this massive exercise. As the U.K. and the U.S. began vaccinating their people, India has announced its plan and proposed line-up for COVID-19 vaccination, shortly after the Union Health Minister denied that the government had ever committed to COVID vaccination for all in the country. As per the government’s strategy, the vaccination is to be given first to health-care workers and then to people over the age of 50, with those over 60 given priority, based on the situation. This will amount to about 30 crore people. The voters’ list for the Lok Sabha and Assembly election polls has been set as the verifying document for the process. A new digital platform, Co-WIN, will be used for COVID-19 vaccination delivery, and about 1.54 lakh Auxiliary Nurse Midwives working on Universal Immunisation Programmes will be roped in as vaccinators, with more such field staff to be mobilised in collaboration with the States. Cold chain systems are to be strengthened across the country to deliver multiple doses.

As governments beef up the vaccination drive, they need to clear the fog on vaccine safety and efficacy among the people. With passing days, it will not be too much to expect from the government a detailed plan for vaccinating children and a break down of tasks down to the lowest governance rung, as counties in the U.S. have been doing. Unless the latter is done, a proper estimate of the true challenges of administering vaccines in the field will not be available, and being unprepared is a guarantee to coming undone. Vaccine hesitancy is a reality and the only way to counter that is to be open and honest about adverse effects and post-vaccination sequelae, if any, and make available relevant information in the public realm. In the past, in some States, vaccination programmes have suffered temporarily because of misinformation about adverse events following shots. In addition, in this case, long-term follow up of all who receive the vaccine is absolutely essential. For, therein lies the assurance that every one in the global line list is waiting for.


The above article is an editorial from India's reputable newspaper. People who wants to develop their command over English language are always advised to read this newspaper. I am just wondering how does 'English standard' of this newspaper appear to native speakers. It will be helpful to know differences between English used in India and native countries.

For source click here.

 

[SoothingDave]

Setting aside words that don't exists outside of India, like "crore" and "lakh," the editorial has a strange mix of elevated formal language ("therein lies the assurance") and informal phrases like "roped in." The overall tone is of one trying too hard to sound "official," with unnecessarily long and complicated sentences.

 

[Skrej]

I'm not sure what you're asking by 'standards'. It's understandable by most native speakers, regardless of what variant of English they speak.

There are a few number terms that are used only in Indian English (crore, lahk), but the rest of the text is understandable by any native English speaker. AmE speakers would notice the spelling of 'programmes' vs 'programs' , but that's just a spelling difference and wouldn't cause any comprehension issues. You'd also need to have some familiarity with Indian politics to understand the references to the Indian Parliament (Lok Sabha) and some of the other Indian government agencies, but that's dependent upon one's familiarity with the country of India, not the grammar of the article.

Any difficulties in reading it would come from its complexity. It is a rather wordy text, written with some complex, lengthy sentences and some technical and academic vocabulary. I had to look up the word 'sequelae'. It's written as more of a technical text than a public newspaper article.

Readability could be improved with some stylistic changes (shorter, more concise sentences, less academic vocabulary), but I didn't notice any glaring grammatical errors or inaccurate word choices if that's what you're asking about. However, I didn't make the effort to pick it apart line by line, either.

 

[kumar17]

Setting aside words that don't exists outside of India, like "crore" and "lakh," the editorial has a strange mix of elevated formal language ("therein lies the assurance") and informal phrases like "roped in." The overall tone is of one trying too hard to sound "official," with unnecessarily long and complicated sentences.

People here like to show off their command over English language. I remember, few years back, my English teacher(at my college) was talking about the benefit of having strong vocabulary(Meaning: knowing a lot of words, more than average). She said she would use the word 'nudge' instead of 'touch' to show herself as well educated(in English).

Using a word apt for a situation is different from using a word just to show off.

 

[GoesStation]

It's not a good example of formal international English. It uses unnecessarily long and complex sentences which tend to obscure the meanings they're trying to express. The newspaper may be fine as a model for students of Indian English, but students who want to cultivate a cosmopolitan style should read something else.

 

[GoesStation]

She said she would use the word 'nudge' instead of 'touch' to show herself as well educated (in English).

Using a word apt for a situation is different from using a word just to show off.

"Nudge" and "touch" are not synonyms. I'm afraid your teacher was misinformed.

 

[kumar17]

I'm not sure what you're asking by 'standards'. It's understandable by most native speakers, regardless of what variant of English they speak.

Many posts here, although grammatical correct, are termed as unnatural by native speakers. I understand it is for the benefit of students to learn English in proper way. I was just curious how they would view this variant of English which is considered high standard here.

 

[SoothingDave]

I hope whoever has to explain the vaccine and possible side effects to the common people writes with a lot more clarity and less affectation than this writer.

 

[probus]

I'm not going to look this up in any corpus but I don't think sequelae exists outside of medical jargon. It's Latin, and goes back to the days (still within living memory) when physicians wrote their prescriptions in that language. The Indian newspaper should have used another word if it wanted to be understood.

 

[Skrej]

Many posts here, although grammatically correct, are termed as unnatural by native speakers. I understand it is for the benefit of students to learn English in a proper way. I was just curious how they would view this variant of English which is considered high standard here.

As you can tell from the other forum members, the issue isn't with naturalness. It's the register and excessive formality. The issues aren't quite the same. The article certainly isn't something learners would want to emulate, though.

An instructor once wrote the following on one of my English composition papers. It applies to this article as well.

"Plagued with demons of grandiloquence. I recommend an exorcism."

 

[GoesStation]

As you can tell from the other forum members, the issue isn't with naturalness.

Well, I find the text extremely unnatural in my dialect. I would have known immediately that it was from an Indian source even if the post hadn't said so.

 

[probus]

People who work in places where that variety of English is the norm would be disadvantaged if they did not abide by the conventions.

That is true. When in India I tend to adopt Indian English. The Indians find it hard to understand me if I don't and besides, they outnumber me by 1.3 billion to one.:-D

 

[GoesStation]

That is true. When in India I tend to adopt Indian English. The Indians find it hard to understand me if I don't and besides, they outnumber me by 1.3 billion to one.:-D

That would be a good time to do the needful.

 

[SoothingDave]

Kindly do the needful and revert to me.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . The above article is an editorial from India's reputable newspaper.

I find that hard to believe. It reads more like a medical journal.

People who wants to develop their command over English language are always advised to read this newspaper.

I wouldn't. It would be misleading. I'd recommend middle-brow publications. In the US, we have The New Yorker, Harper's Magazine, the Atlantic, and others.

I am just wondering how does 'English standard' of this newspaper appear to native speakers.

It's not standard English as I understand the term. It might be standard Indian English, though.

It will be helpful to know differences between English used in India and native countries.

I know differences exist, but don't know what they are. It's safe to say that Indian English is closer to British than American English.

This might be standard Indian English, but it's much wordier and more technical than an article in a British or American newspaper.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Right, but it may be fine for Indian English. Those of us who speak more internationally 'acceptable' varieties of English (such as British or American) can be very dismissive of varieties that seem to us to be too formal/florid/complex/'pretentious'/etc. People who work in places where that variety of English is the norm would be disadvantaged if they did not abide by the conventions.

Absolutely. Good point. As I tried to say, I can't evaluate Indian English. It's very different.

 

[jutfrank]

The text feels to me like the writer is trying too hard to show off his or her language skills. For that reason, I think it's not very well written.

I don't think anything here has much to do with Indian English. Those Indian people who believe that this writer represents a 'high standard' are perhaps those whose English is not sufficiently sensitive to notice how try-hard it is.