Linguistic power asymmetry or post-native English

Do you know that when you speak a foreign language, locals often perceive you as warmer, but less competent?

There is extensive research on accent bias, language attitudes, and the trade-off between perceived warmth and competence. It has been demonstrated again and again. And it’s largely unconscious, for all of us.

This effect is especially strong when:

• The speaker is a woman

• The accent is melodic or non-Germanic, especially Eastern European (particularly Slavic), Balkan, Indian (even with high fluency), and African varieties

• Grammar is fluent but slightly unconventional

I came across this while interviewing linguistics professors for my new immersive theatre piece about language.

My team from the UK didn’t react to the research.

I felt how unfair it was.

But I didn’t really have a choice.

You grow up knowing: “If I want to matter beyond my borders, I must leave my language.”

That’s existential.

Especially when it comes to English.

English is the most widely spoken second language in the world. Over 1.1 billion people speak it as a second language—far outnumbering the ~400 million native speakers.

When you collaborate or compete with native English speakers, L2 speakers are doing two things at once: thinking strategically, while also translating and managing social signals.

Native speakers are just thinking.

They often appear faster, wittier, and more confident because they can improvise socially at full speed. Humor, irony, and softness come “for free.”

Meanwhile, L2 speakers may sound more serious, controlled, or less playful, traits that are often misread as personality or ability.

(I am very, very funny in Lithuanian. I just can’t always show that in English, even less in French)

When two L2 English speakers interact, there’s an unspoken agreement: “We are both operating in a borrowed language.”

No one is trying to perform wit at native speed, signal class through accent, or dominate through rhetorical flair.

The goal becomes understanding, not performance.

Native speakers hold an invisible home-field advantage. L2–L2 interaction removes that advantage entirely. This is psychologically significant.

In the European Union, there is no single “legitimate” native English center. Communication happens in a clear, structured, de-idiomatized version of English.

Documents are drafted in “Euro-English”: simplified syntax, repetitive structure, clarity over style.

In countries like Scandinavia and the Baltic states, people often have near-native proficiency with little interest in sounding native.

Baltic diplomats are sometimes described as “hard to spin” and “annoyingly clear.”

That’s a compliment.

Some of the most effective native English speakers in diplomacy and global leadership are those who deliberately adopt “L2 English”: simpler syntax, explicit structure, fewer idioms, and more listening.

As the world becomes more multipolar, English is becoming less Anglo-centric and more L2-dominant.

We are witnessing a slow inversion native speakers adapting to L2 norms instead of L2 speakers aspiring to native norms

This is not just linguistic.
It is geopolitical.

P.S. This week I’m moving to London for a month. Recommendations and coffee invitations are very welcome.

I’m already thinking about how I’ll struggle to understand British jokes, how my comments might sound less poetic, and how I’ll have to forget everything I just wrote to stay confident.