Common English Writing Errors Made by German Academic Writers

German academic writing is among the most rigorous and intellectually demanding in the world. The tradition of thorough argumentation, precise terminology, and careful logical structure that characterises German scholarship produces research of genuine international significance. But when German academic writers produce manuscripts in English, a set of specific and predictable language patterns follows them from German into English. These patterns are not signs of poor ability. They are structural consequences of German grammar and rhetoric that transfer naturally into English writing unless the writer has been specifically trained to recognise and address them.

This article describes the five most common patterns, explains where each comes from, and gives realistic examples of how each appears in German academic English. Understanding these patterns helps German researchers identify and correct them before a manuscript reaches peer review, where language problems can result in desk rejection or reviewer requests for major revision that have nothing to do with the quality of the underlying research.

Why English Language Patterns Matter for German Researchers

German researchers at TU Munich, LMU, Humboldt-Universität, Freie Universität Berlin, Heidelberg University, RWTH Aachen, and across the country submit English manuscripts to journals whose peer reviewers are typically native English speakers from leading international institutions. The manuscript review process at high-impact journals begins with a desk review by a handling editor who reads the abstract and introduction before deciding whether to send the manuscript to peer review. A manuscript with persistent language problems can be returned at the desk review stage before any expert in the relevant field has assessed the research. At peer review, language problems reduce reviewer confidence in the research even when the methodology is sound and the findings are significant.

The DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) places strong expectations on researchers it funds to publish in English-language international journals indexed in Web of Science and Scopus. Researchers at Max Planck institutes, Helmholtz centres, Fraunhofer institutes, and Leibniz Association institutions produce English manuscripts for some of the world's most competitive journals, where the language quality bar is set by the best manuscripts those journals receive from researchers at MIT, Cambridge, ETH Zurich, and other leading anglophone institutions. Addressing the specific English language patterns that arise from a German academic writing background is one of the most effective steps a German researcher can take before submitting a manuscript.

1. Sentence Length and Subordination

The most immediately visible pattern in German academic English is sentence length. German academic writing uses long, multiply subordinated sentences as a stylistic norm. A sentence with four or five embedded clauses, each qualifying or extending the previous one, is unremarkable in a German journal article or monograph. German readers are trained to hold the sentence structure in working memory while processing each clause and waiting for the main verb and completion of meaning. This is a reading practice that German academic culture cultivates and that German grammatical structure facilitates.

English academic writing uses a different principle. The preferred structure is shorter sentences that deliver their main point early and follow with qualification or extension. The information density is similar, but it is distributed across more sentences rather than compressed into fewer. English peer reviewers reading a manuscript with consistently long, heavily subordinated sentences experience this as reading friction. Each sentence requires more cognitive effort than an English sentence would normally require, and this effort compounds across a 7,000-word manuscript into an overall impression that the writing is difficult to follow.

What this looks like in practice

A German researcher might write a sentence like this:

Although the results of the study, which was conducted over a period of three years across five German universities, with a total sample of 847 participants who were selected on the basis of previously established criteria relating to age, professional background, and language proficiency, suggest that the intervention produced a statistically significant improvement in the measured outcome, the effect size, when adjusted for the confounding variables identified in the preliminary analysis, was smaller than had been anticipated on the basis of the theoretical framework.

This sentence is grammatically correct. Every clause is properly formed. The information it contains is accurate and complete. But it is 95 words long, has six embedded clauses, and makes the reader wait until the final clause to understand what the sentence is actually saying about the results. A peer reviewer reading this sentence must hold a very large amount of information in working memory before the sentence resolves. Across a full manuscript, this becomes exhausting.

The same information can be expressed across three sentences:

The study was conducted over three years across five German universities, with 847 participants selected on the basis of age, professional background, and language proficiency. The intervention produced a statistically significant improvement in the measured outcome. However, when adjusted for the confounding variables identified in the preliminary analysis, the effect size was smaller than the theoretical framework had predicted.

Both versions communicate the same information. The second version is easier to read because each sentence delivers one main point. The peer reviewer can track the argument without holding an accumulating subordinate structure in working memory.

How to identify this pattern in your own writing

Read each sentence in your manuscript aloud. Any sentence that takes longer than about 20 seconds to read aloud is probably too long for English academic writing. Count the number of commas in each sentence. More than three or four commas in a single sentence usually signals a subordination problem. Ask yourself: what is the main point of this sentence? If you cannot identify it without reading the whole sentence, the structure is probably hiding the main point inside the subordination.

2. Verb Placement in Complex Sentences

German grammar places verbs in subordinate clauses at the end of the clause rather than directly after the subject. In a main clause, the finite verb is in the second position. In a subordinate clause introduced by a conjunction such as "weil," "dass," or "obwohl," the verb moves to the final position. This is a fundamental rule of German syntax that operates automatically for any proficient German writer.

When German writers produce complex sentences in English, this verb-final tendency occasionally transfers. The result is English sentences where the verb is delayed, or where qualifying phrases are inserted between the subject and its verb in ways that feel natural in German syntactic structure but create awkwardness in English.

What this looks like in practice

In German, a subordinate clause might read: dass die Ergebnisse, die durch die Analyse der gesammelten Daten gewonnen wurden, signifikant sind — "that the results, which were obtained through the analysis of the collected data, significant are." The verb "significant are" moves to the end in German but must appear directly after the relative clause in English.

In English academic writing, this pattern sometimes appears as:

The results, which were obtained through the analysis of the collected data and which represent a significant departure from the predictions of the existing theoretical framework, suggest that the relationship between the variables is more complex than previously assumed.

This sentence is grammatically correct in English. But the subject ("the results") is separated from its main verb ("suggest") by a 24-word relative clause. A native English writer would typically restructure this to bring the subject and verb closer together:

The results suggest that the relationship between the variables is more complex than previously assumed. This finding represents a significant departure from existing theoretical predictions.

The restructured version moves the main verb close to the subject and separates the two ideas into two sentences, each of which makes one direct point.

How to identify this pattern in your own writing

Check every sentence where the subject and verb are separated by a relative clause or a participial phrase. Count the words between them. If more than eight to ten words separate a subject from its main verb, the sentence is likely more readable restructured. Try moving the qualifying information to a separate sentence after the main clause, or to a sentence preceding it.

3. Nominalization: Turning Verbs into Abstract Nouns

Nominalization is the process of turning a verb or adjective into a noun. "To analyse" becomes "the analysis." "To investigate" becomes "the investigation." "To demonstrate" becomes "the demonstration." Nominalization is a feature of academic writing in all languages, but German academic prose relies on it to an unusually high degree. German has productive morphological resources for creating abstract nouns from verbs and adjectives, and German scholarly writing uses these resources extensively.

When German writers carry nominalization habits into English, the result is writing that is formally correct but dense, indirect, and impersonal. English journal editors increasingly prefer writing that uses active verbs where possible, because active verbal constructions are clearer and faster to read than equivalent nominalized constructions. This preference is particularly strong in high-impact journals in the natural sciences and social sciences.

What this looks like in practice

A German researcher familiar with the nominalization patterns of German academic prose might write:

The undertaking of a systematic examination of the relationship between the variables resulted in the identification of a significant correlation and the development of a theoretical explanation for the observed phenomenon.

Every action in this sentence has been turned into a noun: "undertaking," "examination," "identification," "development," "explanation." The sentence is grammatically correct but reads as heavy and roundabout. The active verbs that would make the sentence direct have been buried inside the nouns.

Restoring the active verbs produces a sentence that covers the same information more directly:

We systematically examined the relationship between the variables, identified a significant correlation, and developed a theoretical explanation for the observed phenomenon.

The restructured version uses active verbs throughout, is shorter, and reads more naturally to an English academic audience without losing any of the original information.

Common nominalizations to watch for

The following nominalized phrases appear frequently in German academic English and can usually be replaced with a more direct construction. "The undertaking of" can be replaced with "undertaking" or with a direct active verb. "The carrying out of" can be replaced with "conducting" or "performing." "The occurrence of" can often be replaced with a direct statement of what occurred. "The existence of a relationship between" can usually be replaced with "the relationship between." "An examination of the data was conducted" can become "we examined the data." In each case, finding the verb hidden inside the noun and restoring it to its verbal form produces clearer, more direct English.

4. False Cognates Between German and English

German and English share a large number of words that look or sound similar because of their common Germanic origin. Many of these cognates are genuine: "Hand" is "hand," "Arm" is "arm," "Winter" is "winter." But a significant number of German words resemble English words while meaning something quite different. These false cognates, called "false friends" in linguistics, produce errors that are invisible to the German writer producing them and immediately visible to the native English reader receiving them.

False cognate errors are particularly common in academic English because academic writing requires precise technical vocabulary, and a single wrong word choice in a methodological description, a theoretical framing, or a statement of findings can change the meaning of a sentence in ways that a peer reviewer notices and questions. These errors are also difficult to catch through standard spell-checking because the false cognate is a real English word. "Actual" is a real English word. "Sensible" is a real English word. A spell-checker will not flag either of them. But if a German writer uses "actual" to mean "current" or "sensible" to mean "sensitive," a native English reader will immediately notice that the word does not mean what the writer intended.

The most common German-English false cognates in academic writing

Aktuell / actual. "Aktuell" in German means "current," "present," or "up-to-date." "Actual" in English means "real" or "existing in fact," often used to emphasise that something is genuinely the case rather than assumed or theoretical. A German researcher writing "the actual state of research" intends to say "the current state of research." A native English reader understands "actual" as emphasising that this is the real state of research, not a theoretical or hypothetical one. The two meanings overlap only partially and diverge enough to confuse careful readers.

Sensibel / sensible. "Sensibel" in German means "sensitive," particularly in the sense of being responsive, delicate, or easily affected. "Sensible" in English means "reasonable," "practical," or "having good judgement." A German researcher describing a "sensible measurement instrument" intends to say it is "sensitive." An English reader understands "sensible" as meaning the instrument is reasonable or practical. These meanings are entirely different and produce a sentence that makes no sense to a native English reader.

Eventuell / eventual. "Eventuell" in German means "possibly," "perhaps," or "if applicable." "Eventual" in English means "happening at some point in the future," "ultimate," or "final." A German researcher writing that "eventual complications should be considered" intends to say that "possible complications should be considered." A native English reader understands this as saying that complications that will occur at some future point should be considered. The meanings are sufficiently different to change the interpretation of a methodological or results statement.

Präzise / precise. This is a genuine cognate that usually transfers correctly, but German writers sometimes use "precise" to mean "exact" in contexts where English would use "specific" or "particular." "A precise description" in German academic writing sometimes intends "a specific description of a particular case" rather than "a description that is accurate to a high level of detail." The distinction is small but matters in methodological sections where precision and specificity have different technical meanings.

Kontrollieren / control. "Kontrollieren" in German means "to check," "to verify," or "to inspect." "Control" in English in a scientific context means "to hold constant," "to regulate," or "to manage an experimental condition." A German researcher writing that "the experimenters controlled the data" may intend to say that they checked or verified the data, not that they held it constant as a controlled variable. The distinction matters significantly in a methods section.

Realisieren / realise. "Realisieren" in German means "to implement," "to carry out," or "to put into practice." "Realise" in English means "to become aware of" or "to understand." A German researcher writing "we realised the proposed model" intends to say they implemented or built the model. A native English reader understands this as saying the researchers came to understand or recognise the model. In a results or methods section, this produces a sentence that makes no sense.

Interessant / interesting. "Interessant" in German is a neutral descriptive word used broadly to describe findings, results, or observations that are noteworthy. "Interesting" in English is a weak word in academic writing that experienced editors often flag as vague. A German researcher describing results as "interesting" is following standard German academic register. An English journal editor reading the same word may see it as a failure to characterise the finding precisely. The correction is to replace "interesting" with a more specific descriptor: "unexpected," "significant," "counterintuitive," "consistent with," or whatever more precisely characterises the finding.

Other false friends to check in your manuscript

The following word pairs warrant careful review in any German academic English manuscript. "Aktuell" and "actual" are the most common source of error. "Sensibel" and "sensible" are the most consequential because they produce a completely wrong meaning. "Eventuell" and "eventual" change a probability statement into a temporal one. "Gymnasium" in German means a secondary school; in English it means a sports hall. "Sympathisch" means "likeable" or "pleasant" in German; "sympathetic" means "feeling or expressing compassion" in English. "Chef" in German means "boss" or "manager"; in English it means a professional cook. These last three are less likely to appear in academic writing than the first four, but all of them produce immediate confusion for native English readers.

5. Register and Formality

German academic writing maintains a very high formal register. The use of impersonal constructions, passive voice, long noun phrases, and abstract vocabulary is a marker of scholarly seriousness in German academic culture. A German academic text that used direct language, first-person constructions, and short vocabulary would risk being seen as journalistic or insufficiently scholarly. This high formality is appropriate and effective in its context.

When German writers transfer this formality into English, the result reads differently to an English academic audience than the writer intends. English academic writing has been moving steadily toward greater directness, more active voice, and clearer plain-language communication for at least three decades. High-impact journals including Nature, Science, Cell, and the leading social science journals now actively encourage direct language, first-person framing of contributions and methods, and short accessible sentences in abstracts and introductions. A German academic manuscript with a very high formal register can read to an English editor as stiff, impersonal, and difficult to engage with, not as authoritative and rigorous.

Passive voice and the attribution of agency

German academic writing has a strong preference for passive voice. Passive constructions remove the human agent from the sentence and emphasise the action or the result rather than the person performing the action. This is standard in German scholarship and reflects a cultural norm of scientific objectivity and modesty. It is inappropriate in German academic writing to make "I" or "we" too prominent.

English academic writing has a different norm, particularly in the natural and social sciences. Many leading journals now specifically require or prefer active voice in methods sections: "We measured the concentration" rather than "The concentration was measured." "We identified three patterns" rather than "Three patterns were identified." The first-person construction is not immodest in English scientific writing; it is simply direct. Passive voice in English academic writing is appropriate in some contexts, particularly when the actor is genuinely unknown or irrelevant. But systematic passive voice throughout a manuscript reads as evasive or indirect to an English editor who expects the authors to claim their methods and findings directly.

Consider the difference between these two sentences from a methods section:

The participants were recruited from the general population through advertisements placed in local newspapers. The questionnaires were administered in a standardised manner by trained research assistants. The data were collected between March and June of the study year and were subsequently subjected to statistical analysis using the methods described in the preceding section.

This passage is grammatically correct and formally appropriate by German academic standards. Every sentence is passive. The researchers are completely absent from the description of their own work. Now compare:

We recruited participants from the general population through local newspaper advertisements. Trained research assistants administered the questionnaires using a standardised protocol. We collected data between March and June and analysed them using the statistical methods described above.

Both passages describe the same methods. The second is shorter, more direct, and reads as more confident and transparent about what the researchers did. Neither is objectively better than the other in absolute terms, but the second matches the editorial preference of the journals most German researchers are targeting.

Formality in vocabulary

German academic writing prefers abstract, Latinate, or compound vocabulary. A German researcher might write "the methodological approach undertaken in the present investigation" where an English researcher would write "our method." "The aforementioned findings" where "these findings" or "our findings" would be more direct. "In the context of the present contribution" where "in this paper" is sufficient and more natural. "It is to be noted that" where "notably" or simply a direct statement works better. "With regard to the question of" where "regarding" or a direct statement is cleaner.

These formality markers are not wrong in English, but they accumulate across a manuscript into an overall register that reads as heavy and over-formal to an English editor. The correction is not to be less precise but to be more direct. The same precision can be achieved with simpler vocabulary and shorter phrases.

Introductions and the statement of contribution

German academic writing tends toward modesty in stating what a paper contributes. German scholars often understate the significance of their findings, describe their work in terms of what it explores or examines rather than what it demonstrates or shows, and end conclusions with qualifications rather than clear statements of what has been established. This modesty is a cultural and rhetorical norm in German scholarship and is appropriate in its context.

English academic introductions, particularly in the natural and social sciences, follow a different convention. The IMRAD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) has a specific expectation for the introduction: it should state clearly what the paper does and why it matters. Peer reviewers at high-impact journals read introductions looking for a clear statement of the gap in current knowledge and a clear statement of what this paper contributes to closing that gap. A German introduction that explores a question, surveys the literature, and arrives at a tentative statement of what the paper addresses may not communicate clearly enough to a peer reviewer reading thirty manuscripts a month who needs to identify the contribution in the first page or two.

How to Address These Patterns Before Submission

The five patterns described in this article are structural consequences of German academic writing conventions. They are not evidence of poor English ability. German researchers who have read and written in English for years often still carry these patterns because they are deeply embedded in the rhetorical habits of German scholarly writing. Self-correction is difficult because the writer has produced the text and has difficulty reading it the way a native English reader reads it for the first time.

Several practical steps help. Reading the manuscript aloud catches sentences that are too long to process in one breath. Checking every sentence for the distance between its subject and its main verb identifies delayed verb problems. Searching the text for the specific false cognates listed above — "actual," "sensible," "eventual," "realise," "control" — catches the most common vocabulary errors. Reviewing each passive sentence in the methods and results sections and asking whether active voice would be more direct addresses the voice problem.

Professional editing by a native English editor with disciplinary expertise in the relevant field addresses all of these patterns simultaneously in a single review. A professional editor reads the manuscript the way a peer reviewer reads it for the first time, identifies the patterns that are invisible to the writer who produced the text, and returns all corrections in Track Changes so the researcher can review each change individually before the manuscript is submitted. For researchers at TU Munich, LMU, Humboldt-Universität, the Max Planck institutes, and across Germany's university and research system, this is the most direct way to ensure that the language quality of a manuscript matches the quality of the research it presents.

Editor World's Academic Editing Service for German Researchers

Editor World's journal article editing service connects German researchers with native English editors whose academic background matches their discipline. You select your editor before submitting. Browse editor profiles at editorworld.com/editors by academic discipline, credentials, and verified client ratings from previous researchers in your field. Message any editor directly before submitting to discuss your manuscript, your target journal, and any specific patterns in your English writing you want the editor to focus on. Request a free sample edit of your abstract and introduction before committing to the full manuscript.

All editing is returned in Track Changes in Microsoft Word. British English is available for researchers submitting to European journals that follow British conventions. American English is applied when specified. A certificate of editing is available as an optional add-on for manuscripts submitted to journals that require confirmation of native English editing. Turnaround options include same-day editing with 2-hour, 4-hour, and 8-hour options for urgent submissions, available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

For a full overview of Editor World's services for German researchers, visit our English editing services in Germany page. For Berlin-based researchers, visit our English editing services in Berlin page. For Munich-based researchers, visit our English editing services in Munich page. For guidance on publishing strategy and journal selection under Germany's research evaluation frameworks, visit our article on academic publishing and the REF for context on how UK and European publication standards apply to German collaborative research.

Content reviewed by Editor World editorial staff. Editor World provides professional English editing and proofreading services for German researchers, academics, and students at universities and research institutes across Germany.