Several articles in the past week have caused me to reflect anew on the role of English in globalization – more specifically, in the globalization of the academic enterprise. The first, by UCLA historian Peter Baldwin, is very much in sync with the views I express in The Great Brain Race. In a New York Times symposium about an important but somewhat controversial new report on brain drain from France to the United States, Baldwin highlights the decisive role English has played in global intellectual commerce. “…the role of English as the lingua franca – in both research and teaching – means that scholars can go anywhere without being burdened by the need to retool linguistically, or forever be Dr. Strangeloves professing in heavy accents.”
Once upon a time the scholarly linga franca was Latin, of course – the language of the Church, and thus of the earliest Western universities. It allowed students and professors from diverse nations to study together, just as English does today. English provides a linguistic common currency not just at international conferences but at many campuses around the globe. Writes Baldwin: “The Scandinavian universities – otherwise cursed by obscure languages – function in large measure in English at all levels, at least in those fields that are not wholly Scando-centric. British historians write books on German history that are best-sellers in the country of their focus.” Other examples abound – the creation of English-only mandates for undergraduates at elite South Korean universities, for instance, or the availability of English-language master’s degrees at certain French and German universities.
But is there a danger of unhealthy homogeneity, or even cultural imperalism, in such widespread reliance on English? Such criticisms, or variants on them, by no means come only from the non-English-speaking world. Many in Anglophone nations fret about the insularity that may come with monolinguism. Writing in the Chronicle last month, Rosemary G. Feal, executive director of the Modern Language Association, condemned the recent announcement by the State University of New York at Albany that it would eliminate major, minor, and graduate programs in French, Italian, Russian, and the classics. “Until Americans see learning languages as an indispensable enterprise, we must argue, continuously and vigorously, for the centrality and indisputable relevance of this area of study.” Moving from an inward-looking to a cosmopolitan world view, Nigel Thrift of the University of Warwick argued in a post on this blog the other day, may require small but telling symbolic steps: his campus has posted signs in its main building that welcome visitors in 25 languages.
As a long-ago comparative lit major, I certainly applaud the study of foreign languages. I still believe that the ability to speak (and ideally read and write) another language or two is the mark of a well-educated person, not to mention a huge practical asset for anybody, whether businessperson or tourist, seeking to understand and engage with other nations and their citizens. At the same time, I have more than a little ambivalence on the subject because of the element of self-flagellation that so often accompanies laments about American monolingualism. When I give speeches on academic globalization, I am often asked whether the U.S. lead in higher education is threatened by our infamous shortcoming when it comes to learning foreign languages. I can’t credibly argue that it does. If there was ever a race for global linguistic dominance, it is over, and English is the clear winner. By one estimate, nonnative English speakers worldwise outnumber native ones by three to one. On the global academic scene, English is the key to university access and scholarly collaboration everywhere. Foreign students and professors learn English because they have to. If, thanks to shifting academic power centers, a knowledge of Chinese or Korean ever becomes essential to academic advancement, U.S. students who want to make a mark on the international research scene will be rushing to sign up for language classes.
That particular development seems unlikely in the near term, but who knows what the next 50 or 100 years will bring? English may not last forever as the world’s numero uno language. As I learned from a Wall Street Journal review of The Last Lingua Franca: English Until the Return of Babel, author Nicholas Ostler argues that English is likely to have far less staying power than once-ubiquitous world languages such as Latin and Greek. Ostler notes that English isn’t used by global religious institutions, as Latin was, and that its dominance as the world’s language of commerce could be significantly eroded by the rise of popular regional languages like Russian. He doesn’t predict that Chinese, or any other widely spoken language, will take its place, but rather that no one language is likely to again rule the world. I have not yet had a chance to read Ostler’s book, so I don’t know how he applies his analysis to the continued supremacy of English on the global university scene. For now, it seems to me that the possibilities for intellectual exchange opened up by the spread of English as a common tongue are so significant that a return to Babel would be a scholarly setback indeed.




8 Responses to Let’s Not Fret About the Dominance of English in Global Academe
educationfrontlines - December 6, 2010 at 8:46 am
The number of students in China studying English outnumbers the total U.S. population. The reason is not an admiration for English nor any superiority of English, but the practical need to use it to get ahead in business and science. Simply, discover something and publish it in Chinese and someone who publishes it in English ten years later will get the credit.
For a long time, some European journals have published in any of several major languages but always required multiple abstracts, one of which was in English. This helps the languge imperialism problem, but we almost never see this in U.S. journals.
What is not discussed is that distantly related languages “chunk” reality differently and these semantic differences may have an advantage in setting up questions and providing analogies for solving certain scientific and social problems. A complex ecological relationship or economic dilemma may be best resolved by another culture; when the issue is then resolved and presented in a math formula (a truly universl language), our response might well be in English, “who would have thought of that?”
John Richard Schrock
11122222 - December 6, 2010 at 9:20 am
A key difference between the role of English today and other “world languages” of the past is that English is in fact a world language, with many variants used by large numbers around the world–such as in India, Pakistan, Nigeria, and elsewhere. Further, former “world languages” were in fact only regional languages–even Latin held sway mainly in Europe and had little or no salience in Asia or Africa. It was only a “world language” to Europeans whose vision was limited.
Philip Altbach
crunchycon - December 6, 2010 at 12:23 pm
And yet, the U.S. is loathe even to ask immigrants, legal or illegal, to learn enough English to function in the wider society outside their language enclaves, much less to require it.
22286593 - December 6, 2010 at 12:24 pm
When I was in Seoul last summer, I met a group of students working really, really hard to do well on the TOEIC that tests for English communication (listen and speaking as well as writing) test. It turns out that their aim wasn’t to take a job or study in the U.S. or in other English speaking countries, but to work for Korean companies that do business in places ranging from China, Japan, Russia, and Brazil. Rather than imposing a singular mandate for internationalization, English is oddly the language of choice for students and other who want multiple options in a globalizing world.
crunchycon - December 6, 2010 at 12:31 pm
22286593 — why do you find it odd, especially in light of the article?
22074041 - December 6, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Perhaps one of the most amusing scenes I’ve witnessed in international travel is a group of individuals in an airport or restaurant conversing with great animation with one another in accented English, not one of them a native speaker. Yet without this common language, these travelers from Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, and Hungary (in one case) would not have been able to exchange even superficial conversation. Returning to a provincial, nationalist Babel would hardly facilitate commerce, dialog, or small talk, let alone academic discussion. But in speaking languages other than English, we might exercise new parts of our brains and gain other kinds of perspective.
crunchycon - December 6, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Definitely, 22074041. It wasn’t until I lived for nearly 10 months (Fulbright) in another country, in whose language I was able to function nominally prior, that I became somewhat fluent, with perspective of the culturally significant aspects of the language. To be sure, I could not become absolutely fluent, but my abillity to express myself in that language increased exponentially from having needed to use it to communicate on a daily basis. Fifteen years later, I am still able to converse with native speakers at a fairly high level.
22074041 - December 6, 2010 at 5:01 pm
To cruncycon – Great story. By way of disclosure (re: post 22074041) I’ll confess that I’ve spent years of my life distributed over four decades living at intervals in Russia and the former Soviet Union. I wrote about cultural encounters in my book “Through Dark Days and White Nights: Four Decades Observing A Changing Culture.” These stays range from residencies as a graduate student in history in the dormitory of Moscow State University in the 1960s through life as the wife of the American Ambassador to Russia in the 1990s through turn of the century. My husband was and is fluent in Russia at the highest level, thanks to college and university programs that trained him. And I’m grateful to Indiana University for training and sending us both well before it was “fashionable” to study abroad – and my ability to converse in Russian, learning such interesting cultural lessons as the fact that there is no word for “privacy” in Russian. (Naomi F. Collins, Ph.D.)