LANGUAGE AND THE INGENUITY GAP IN SCIENCE

Abstract

Over the centuries, first Latin and then French, German, and Russian have receded in perceived importance as languages of science. Other powerful languages with extensive internal scientific discourse, such as Japanese and Chinese, have always been largely excluded. The dominance of English has elevated the reputation of English-language universities and advantaged native speakers of English by creating a self-reinforcing loop of language flow. Abstracting services insist on English-language abstracts; citation indexes often include only English-language citations; thus English appears to dominate scientific discourse, and English-speaking universities invariably head the lists of leading scientific institutions. The inexact assumption appears to be that, with enough pressure, others will be forced to learn English in order to compete. Thus scientific advancement circumscribed by the English language is erroneously equated with scientific advancement in general. If this discriminatory situation is to change, the advantaged must acknowledge their advantage and explore ways of redressing the imbalance.

Notes

An earlier version of this article was presented at the symposium English-Only Science in a Multilingual World, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Boston, February 15, 2008.

¹ Mair (2006), citing Tsunoda (1983), shows how French, English and German were essentially equal as languages of publication in the natural sciences until around 1927, when English pulls definitively ahead; see also Ammon (1989).

²Associated with the ideology of French superiority as a scientific language is the assertion, extending at least back to the 18th century, that French is more “logical” or “clear” than other languages (see Swiggers, 1990). On the domain shift from French to English, see Durand (2001).

³For a slightly more sanguine view on the future of Russian, which none the less assigns Russian to the second tier of languages, see Mikhalchenko and Trushkova (2003), especially p. 286.

⁴Such figures are self-reinforcing in a different way: first we have to define what constitutes a “scientific” publication, and this process of definition may well have its English-language bias. Gaetani (2004, p. 5) quotes Truchot (1996): “Rappelons que s'il y a quelque 100,000 journaux scientifiques publiés dans le monde, dont 50% sont en anglais, le noyau dur de l'édition scientifique mondiale est constitué d'environ 4 000 journaux, contrôlés à plus des deux tiers par des éditeurs américains, britanniques et néerlandais qui publient presque intégralement en anglais […] De plus, ce sont les articles de ce noyau dur qui servent de références. Ce sont eux qui sont indexés de manière prioritaire dans les fichiers informatisés, c'est-à-dire dans les banques de données qui ont été constituées pour réunir et diffuser l'information scientifique.”

⁵Carli (2006, p. 1) is emphatic on the dangers: “La comunicazione scientifica internazionale rappresenta oggi un evidente caso di conflitto linguistico per i radicali e pervasivi fenomeni di riduzione ed estinzione linguistico-culturale in favore di un monolinguismo anglofono. Questo è ben visibile in numerosi settori della ricerca scientifica primaria, quella altamente specialistica e settoriale, tanto che all'inizio di questo nuovo millennio tutte le lingue diverse dall'inglese, comprese le cosiddette lingue di cultura, ricoprono lo status di lingua minoritaria nel dominio della trasmissione del sapere scientifico-specialistico.”

⁶Phillipson (2003, p. 77) cites British Council figures indicating that more than 550,000 foreigners attend language schools in Britain each year. The Council claims that the “English language industry” (e.g., teaching, publishing) is the second most important income-generator for Britain after North Sea oil. See also Graddol (1997, 2006).

⁷After enjoying modest increases over the past several years, foreign-language enrollments are again dropping in U.S. schools. See, for example, Rhodes and Pufahl (2010), who document significant declines at the elementary school level in the United States. News reports point to similar declines in the United Kingdom (Garner, 2009).

⁸See criteria at http://www.arwu.org/ARWUMethodology2009.jsp

⁹See criteria at http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/methodology/simple-overview

¹⁰The Top Universities Rating has been widely criticized as resembling a beauty contest. Recently, the survey has shifted to Scopus from ESI (Essential Science Indicators) for its citations, doing so, in part, because the coverage of Scopus is wider and covers more foreign-language publications. The shift has done little to move non-English-speaking universities up the scale. See http://www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversityrankings/

¹¹I am not, of course, suggesting that some languages are harder than others in any absolute sense, only that it is easier for, say, a Swede to master English than it is for someone from China, whose language bears no direct linguistic relation to English and who must accordingly invest many hours in learning English (see, e.g., Moreno, 2000, pp. 118–119).

¹²See the Official Bologna Process Web site, http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/Bologna/

¹³Just how many users or speakers Esperanto has is not so much a matter of dispute as a matter of lack of hard data (estimates range from a low of 50,000 to a high of two million). Assessing numbers of speakers of a language, especially when it is a second or third language, is notoriously problematic (Tonkin, 2003, p. 323), and such assessment is doubly difficult when the population is scattered over many countries and when almost all learning of the language takes place outside the channels of formal school-based instruction. How much Esperanto must someone know to become a user of the language? How much attrition must occur before someone no longer knows a language? Is there a difference between speaking and reading knowledge? On the problem of assembling language statistics internationally, see McConnell (2003); on the problem of definition of a user, see Mackey (2003).

¹⁴On alternative approaches to overcoming language difference, see Fettes (2003). On the feasibility and desirability of Esperanto, see Piron (1994), Durand (2002, pp. 111–117). On the concept of linguistic justice (and hence the notion of fairness, as I use it here), see Van Parijs (2003).