[quote=“ehophi”][quote=“Charlie Phillips”]Most of these arguments only deal with the semantic and syntactical elements. Semantically, there’s not much of a problem with the OP’s example.
The problem I have with it is that it shows a lack of sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence. In a conversation about going out in Vegas, as in Rockefeller’s example, the usage is correct. However, an encyclopedia entry is not delivered in the same way as a conversation between friends who are debating something. If I was in the mood to edit the wiki entry, I would replace it with ‘There are also…’
There are some EFL learners and EFL teachers of English who have mastered the phonology, morphology, semantics and syntax, but still lack the ability to make their English feel natural in the context in which they are using it.
For example, a competent EFL English speaker may say something to you like: ‘You will find Taipei to be well serviced by public transport, moreover, the MRT is very clean and convenient for foreigners.’
There’s nothing wrong with the semantics or syntax, but it just ain’t natural. 
[/quote]
I only worry about that when the message of a given sentence is highly ambiguous or garbled. I’d be reluctant to criticize a fluent English L2 speaker for not sounding “natural” if he were perfectly comprehensible.
The “naturalness” is worrisome to me, philosophically speaking.
Indulge in a thought experiment:
Imagine that you discover a tribe of people who have had no social contact with the outside world, and yet, astonishingly, speak a very comprehensible dialect of what sounds like English (which they call “Twinglish”). Suppose that Twinglish proves so comprehensible to you as a native English speaker that there is no occasion in which you ever misinterpret Twinglish speakers’ messages upon offering the same charitable interpretations that you offer to other native English speakers. However, you recognize that this dialect is radically different from yours, and even some words are pronounced entirely differently.
If the purpose of language is effective communication, and a Twinglish speaker could, in principle, communicate with any English speaker, why would there be any motivation to “correct” Twinglish into English? Wouldn’t it be more beneficial for both groups to integrate their languages as much as they could?
There are instances where we want to sound as much like the in-group as possible (e.g. Cops working with drug lords don’t talk like patrolmen do.) and could benefit from some training for that role, but per the example above, that should be a choice for the Twinglish speaker, which then makes him subject to native English prescriptions. Prescribing English to Twinglish speakers when they are content with their competence as it stands sounds like linguistic imperialism.[/quote]
Except its NOT twinglish, its clunky English.