This article shows that technical writing is influenced by culture. English IT technical manuals written by English native-speakers were compared to manuals written by French technical writers to reveal typical errors in the use of punctuation, relative clauses, logical and time connectors. Further considerations of French culture and education will let us know the origins of those errors, and therefore, how to avoid them.

I. A Few Questions

Technical writing: money vs. quality

How many translators have said: “This text wasn’t written by a native speaker!”? Because English is the dominant economic language, the most common source language for technical documentation is English. Therefore translation from English is easier and less expensive. Pushing financial considerations even further, many French companies decide to have their English documentation produced in India, China or Taiwan, or by in-house French writers.
People think that in order to write technical documentation, the writer only has to understand the subject matter and to master the terminology. Many French managers are convinced that anyone equipped with a good bilingual dictionary could write technical documentation. But saving money at the expense of quality is not the best solution. Companies are becoming aware that poor source texts induce higher localization costs, delayed time-to-market and loss in sales.

Technical writing in France

French universities offer a professional master’s degree in technical writing, a five-year diploma with intensive English courses. Are those French post-graduates able to produce technical texts in an English-native sounding way?
What “errors” are French people making when writing in English, and how can we explain them? In this article, by comparing French and English writing, we will see how language – and even technical language – is influenced by our culture, society, environment and education. The problem lies in the stylistic little things which make difference.

II. Stylistic  “little things”

Compared stylistics: origins and definition

Comparative stylistics is not a new subject. The professional French translators’ bedside reading is probably: Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais by Jean-Paul Vinay et Jean Darbelnet, published in 1958. This book does not deal with technical writing, but gives the most important differences between French and English writing. The main cultural difference lies in the fact that French is an abstract language whereas English is very concrete. French people are indeed all educated to be analytically-minded, and France is the only European country where philosophy is a mandatory course part of the A-level program.

French culture vs. Anglo-Saxon culture

As an obvious result of their education, French people translate an action using nominal forms revealing their analytical and Cartesian minds. They attach more importance to conceptual notions. On the other hand, Anglo-Saxons are pragmatic thinkers: they rather use verb forms and chronologically describe actions, this shows that they value facts. This follows a whole series of consequences: English has short sentences and simple syntax using anaphoric elements, that is, the repetition of a word or a group of words (using pronouns such as it, they, this, that, etc.) at the beginning of several consecutive sentences. French usually has long sentences with complicated syntax, which involves the use of relative clauses (subordination) and also a lot of connectors, unlike English.

However, for this preliminary study, we limited our research to four main axes:

1. General aspect of the sentence: length and punctuation;
2. Use of relative clauses as subordination vs. coordination: a common parallel in French vs. English comparative stylistics;
3. Use of logical connectors: more frequent in French than in English;
4. Use of time connectors: different time and space approach is different in French and Anglo-Saxon cultures .

III. How the study was conducted: method and tools

An efficient way to determine the effect of culture on language is to conduct a stylistic analysis. We therefore compared the way certain terms or expressions were used in two sets of manuals. The native set containing English technical manuals written by English native-speakers was thus compared to the non-native set containing English technical manuals written by French technical writers. Both sets of manuals contained around 100,000 words. This amount of words was a necessary condition for a relevant study. The texts were then analysed by an integrated suite of programs  that show through statistical data how words behave in texts. The number of occurrences of a word or expression in both native and non-native sets were identified and counted. The final results were obtained with the application of statistical calculations and tests.

IV. The results of the study

Sentence length and punctuation

The first results showed that in both set of manuals, there were no significant differences as to the length of the sentences. Non-native sentences even tend to be a bit shorter than native sentences. This can be explained by the fact that technical writing is dominated by its own rules: technical documentation should contain short and clear sentences for the users to easily understand the instructions and processes. French technical writers seem to apply this rule very strictly: the sentences end sounding less natural than when written by a native-speaker.

The results showed great differences in the use of the comma which is used twice as often in the native set as in the non-native set. This difference can be explained by the fact that a comma is usually used in English to separate sequences of three digits (decimal separator). But this case is not the most frequent in our set of manuals. We then explored two more possibilities: the use of the comma before and and before which. We observed that in 50 % of the cases, French writers forgot the comma before and, in a list of more than three elements. They also omitted, in the same proportions, the comma before the relative pronoun which when it introduces a non-restrictive clause (unlike the restrictive clause, the removal of a non-restrictive clause doesn't alter the meaning of the sentence).  
Punctuation is quite tricky to use in French as well as in English. Imprecise English grammar handbooks for French learners make the problem even more disconcerting: most grammar handbooks say that the use of the comma is less frequent in English than in French. French writers finally think that punctuation is not that important in English and they end up by forgetting it or simplifying it – incorrectly! In this case, it is not a cultural but rather an educational issue.

Relative pronouns and clauses

The results showed that there were no significant differences in the total amount of relative pronouns (that, who, whom, which, whose). This is reassuring as we previously said that the sentence length is similar in both native and non-native sets of manuals. The main difference lies however in the use of which, that and whose. 
English writers very frequently use that unlike French writers who rather use which. This can be explained by the fact that English is a descriptive and chronologic language. It follows a linear scheme. It is therefore dominated by the use of anaphora and of corresponding anaphoric elements, such as pronouns (it, this, that, etc.) or relative clauses beginning with that – in fact, in English, who/whom and which are often replaced by that in restrictive clauses. But French learners of English seem to ignore this rule as well as the difference between which and that. And since one of the main characteristics of the French language is the use of subordination, French writers prefer to use the pronoun which that seems to better correspond to the use of a restrictive clause for a French writer.
Whose is very rarely used by English native-speakers, whereas it appears quite a few times in the non-native set of manuals. The results showed that in the native set, whose is exclusively used after an animate object (i.e. a person, an animal or a plant); moreover, an expression using with would be used rather than the pronoun whose (e.g. The tree with the yellow leaves is higher than the house). In the non-native set however – i.e. written by French writers – whose could be found several times after an inanimate element (e.g. an object). Once again, this error can be explained by imprecise and incomplete English grammar handbooks aimed at French learners: some of them say that the use of the pronoun whose is allowed after an inanimate object… but not in IT technical documentation! Unfortunately the handbook doesn't say anything about the context. 
In conclusion, French writers tend to simplify English grammar by applying French models to English sentences and the inaccurate grammar handbooks make it even easier to get it wrong: French writers end up using the wrong words in wrong places!

Time connectors

The following time connectors were submitted to this study: as, as long as, as soon as, after, before, once, until, when, and while. The total amount of (time and logical) connectors is, as predicted, slightly higher in the non-native than in the native set. French, as mentioned before, contains more connectors because of its analytic formulations. However, the main differences lie in the use of the following time connectors: when and once are rather used by French writers whereas until, before, and after are more commonly used by English native-speakers.
This all can be explained by the different way English and French people apprehend time. As we said before, English is a linear and chronological descriptive language: a juxtaposition of clauses with the use of the connector and is predominant in English discourse. The use of once breaks this linearity, that’s why English native speakers don’t use it very often. When once is used in the native set of manuals, we could notice that linearity is respected as the connector appeared at the beginning of the sentence, or the sentence is formulated in such a way that the natural order of the action is respected. The use of until allows the linearity to be respected too, that’s why it is more commonly used in the native set of manuals. French people are known to have a less precise approach of time. That is why they rather use when. When is not as accurate as before and after, which are preferably used by English native-speakers. Those connectors bring more information about time order.
This analysis revealed deeper cultural influences: the fact that French people are very analytic and use a lot of connectors but also different perceptions of the world in French and Anglo-Saxon cultures. Here we highlighted the differences in the approach of time order but a further study of, for example, adverbs of place (here, where) would reveal other cultural differences.

Logical connectors

In this section, we studied the following logical connectors: contrast connectors (although, but, however, on the other hand, though, whereas), cause connectors (because, as, since), and consequence connectors (so, therefore, thus). The results mainly revealed differences in the use of contrast and cause connectors.
The three contrast connectors but, although and however are used in about the same proportions in the native set of manuals, whereas French writers tend to exclusively use but at the expense of the other contrast connectors. This can be explained by the fact that the French apply the scheme of the short French word mais that sounds shorter and simpler, but also less formal. Moreover, the writer seems not to know the slight difference of meaning between but and however: But is more moderated while however expresses a stronger contrast. French writers would rather not use the connector although because they, once again, apply the scheme of the French expression bien que which requires a more complicated syntax form with the use of the French subjunctive.
The results showed that the cause connector because is very commonly used by English native-speakers. Here again, we can say that French writers are applying their mother-tongue models when they use because but also, since and as. A parallel was drawn between because and parce que, which is less elegant in French texts compared to their equivalents (puisque and comme). This assumption is highlighted by the fact that in the non-native (French) set, we very rarely find because at the beginning of a sentence – unlike in the native set. In fact, French pupils have always learned that using the French because (parce que) at the beginning of a sentence is not elegant at all! The use of since and as will therefore sound more formal and elegant to French ears!

Conclusion

From this study we may conclude that French writers tend to exaggeratedly apply the rules they find in the guide books to technical writing as well as in the unfortunately often incomplete and inaccurate grammar handbooks for French learners. They also tend to apply the scheme of their mother tongue when writing English, which often makes their texts sound un-natural to native speakers. French writers are deeply influenced by their culture and education when writing in English and don’t seem to be aware of it.

This study also showed the evidence of cultural and educational influences throughout the discourse, such as use of pronouns, connectors, punctuation.  In the study, we concentrated on those small stylistic elements which show how putting each of those little imperfections all together in one text could make it sound un-natural to a native speaker.

This article doesn’t aim at answering questions like whether it makes sense to outsource technical writing to low cost countries. Profound cultural and educational differences cannot easily be overcome. This article is a modest contribution to understanding the complexity of language and to better understand why, even after a long and intense linguistic training, we cannot hide our culture and education.

Diana Karel, Project Manager at WhP.