The Role of English Language on the Development of Science

ISSA GHOLI ANJAMROOZ

Ph.D scholar in English

tangsanan@yahoo.com

Abstract

For centuries men have discussed the need for, and potential value of, an international language. Artificial languages, such as Esperanto and Interlingua, have been invented to help overcome cultural, political and other obstacles hindering scientific communication. However, such efforts have had an insignificant effect on bridging the language gap. On the other hand, for all intents and purposes, in written communication English has become the international language of science.

        However, the dominance of the English language in the scientific field, including teaching, academic education, research publications, meetings, conferences and scientific societies, could also lead to poorer outcomes in the field of research and development because of the possible exclusion of those not able or not willing to adapt. It might also contribute to the gradual elimination of other languages and potentially other cultures, with unknown consequences for the advancement of science. Biodiversity in nature is viewed as an important factor in the maintenance of a balanced and healthy environment. Perhaps a similar diversity in languages and

cultures promote instead of obstructs scientific advancement [4].

Introduction

         Globalization in business, politics and other aspects of our everyday life is viewed by many as an inevitable reality. The English language has undoubtedly benefited significantly from the new era, in gradually penetrating into other cultures in many fields such as music, arts, education, and more recently science. Previous reports indicate that such penetration is also evident in the field of biomedical sciences [1, 2], primarily supported by the paper and online publication in the English language of the majority of about 6,000 journals indexed in PubMed. The adoption of a universal language in science, namely English, could facilitate communication between individuals from different countries and enhance the timely interchange of ideas among researchers and scientists with potential benefits to scientific advancement and development [3]. Language barriers could also potentially be eliminated and diffusion of knowledge could be promoted through the World Wide Web in real time.

English: an international language for science

      The three separate editions of Current Contents list over 200,000 titles per year. Probably 50% or more of the articles themselves are written in English. In synthetic chemistry, 57% of the papers abstracted in the Index Chemicus were written in English. Last year over 75% of the titles listed in Current Contents were in English. And while many journals still use the vernacular for titles and/or articles, they do include English language abstracts or publish contents pages in English.

        The acceleration of this process of establishing English as the international language of science conveys practical benefits which should be seriously considered by journal editors, publishers and authors.

         For the average scientist today there is plenty of material to read, regardless of what his native Language may be. Any impediment to reading, such as struggling with an unfamiliar second or third language, will often mean that the article will go unread. This is not to imply that an important article is deliberately ignored when it appears in a language other than English. Indeed, such material when detected will elicit the scientist’s attention to such a degree that he will make considerable sacrifices of time, effort and money to read or have it translated. Delectability, then, is the key to whether an article will or will not be read. In Current Contents delectability is made easier when article titles appear in English. To scan a contents page quickly is quite a different activity than reading an article determined previously, from its title, to be of interest. Scanning provides awareness of what is going on -- of what must be read. Many readers tell me that they have little difficulty in reading a German or French article, but do find it difficult to scan title pages in these languages because scanning requires an entirely different type of linguistic competence. They also note that the function of scanning among many contents pages, as in Current Contents, differs markedly from the function of reading the full text of a selected article. With other items competing for attention, the importance of a title providing maximum delectability, or perhaps ‘scanability ’, is underscored. Optimal formatting helps and improves readability and speeds up the scanning process. Current Contents makes every effort to provide readable formats. Nevertheless, language is probably a critical factor for most readers.

          Since Current Contents has an international audience, one might say that the ideal publication would be multi-lingual, listing all titles in five languages -- one or more of which is read by most of our subscribers, including German, French, Russian and Japanese, as well as English. This is, of course, impractical since it would quadruple the size of Current Contents. The publication of separate editions in each Language would not solve the problem since the lower circulation of each edition would eliminate the economic advantage of larger press runs. Current Content would then be subjected to the same fate as the specialty journals which reach a smaller audience than a publication of wider appeal.

     German researchers have contributed significantly to science in many different fields, including the biomedical sciences. In the past century, the German language was recognized among Europeans as the language most frequently used in science. To evaluate the possible penetration of English into the German language, we studied the use of English at a German national medical conference.

         We assessed the use of the English language in the published abstracts of a major German national conference, namely the German Interdisciplinary Conference of Intensive Care Medicine and Emergency Medicine. The abstract books of all seven DIVI conferences, organized between 1991 and 2004, were reviewed to count the number of abstracts presented at each conference as well as the subsets of abstracts presented in English. All abstracts presented in English were reviewed further to identify the country of origin of the authors. These abstracts were categorized into three groups. The first group included those abstracts presented solely by investigators based in German universities, hospitals or institutions. Abstracts that were the result of collaboration between investigators from Germany and other countries were included in a second category, and abstracts presented by investigators from countries other than Germany were classified into a third group. However, there was a gradual increase in the proportion of abstracts presented in English during the subsequent DIVI conferences (from 1.6% to 25.1%). Of the total of 98 abstracts presented in English during the last four DIVI conferences, 86 were written by solely German investigators, on the basis of the information provided. Three abstracts were the result of collaboration between investigators from Germany and other countries (Austria, Israel and the USA). The remaining nine abstracts were presented by investigators from countries other than Germany (Poland, UK, Austria , Slovakia and the USA).

       There is a growing debate around the world about the rapid penetration of the English language into various expressions of human activity, including science [6-9]. It is estimated that half of the world population will use English by the year 2015. The results of our analysis suggest that the penetration of English into a German national interdisciplinary medical conference that has been attended mostly by German-speaking investigators was astounding. The fact that about one-quarter of the abstracts were presented in English at the last DIVI conference (2004) deserves the attention of German scientists as well as the broad scientific community worldwide. It should also be noted that most (88%) of the abstracts in English were presented by investigators based solely in German universities, hospitals or other German institutions. There are several possible explanations for the observed penetration of the English language in the German national medical conference studied that might also operate in other scientific activities in most non-English-speaking countries. There is a language effect that pressures investigators to publish their work in journals indexed by Index Medicus and the Institute for Scientific Information because of the visibility of papers appearing in the PubMed database and the influence of their impact factor, respectively. Practical reasons might therefore guide investigators to prepare their work in English for submission for publication. In addition, the use of English can be considered an important qualification distinguishing researchers who are fluent in English from others lagging behind in many non-English-speaking countries. German investigators might also present abstracts in English at their national conference after those same abstracts have already been presented at an English-speaking international conference. Finally, it is possible that the organizing committee of the studied conference might have invited the use of English in an attempt to increase the number of non-German-speaking delegates.

         In conclusion, we found that about one-quarter of the abstracts presented at a German medical conference were written in English, indicating a significant penetration of the English language into a German national multidisciplinary conference. We believe that the results of our study merit attention from the scientific community around the world for two main reasons: first, because a considerable penetration of English was evident at a particular conference that is attended mostly by German-speaking scientists and clinicians, who elected to present their abstracts to a German-speaking audience in English, and second, because the German language, with its tradition and rich history in science as well as its popularity, was thought to be one of the most difficult languages in Europe to penetrate. Our findings suggest that researchers around the world should engage in an open and unbiased discussion about the future of languages in science. 

Conclusion

       We conclude, for the present at least, that the only reasonable solution is to publish as many contents pages in English as is economically and technically feasible. To do this we need the cooperation of publishers and authors. Many of the world’s largest publishers of scientific journals have realized the value of publishing contents pages in English. For example, the Swiss firm, S. Karger, which publishes more than 40 journals, will list all titles on contents pages in English in 1968. As always, current Contents will make every reasonable effort to assist editors and publishers in effecting this transition. As the ultimate users and originators of the articles fisted in Current Contents, our readers can be of immeasurable help by providing English language titles and abstracts for their articles when submitting them for publication. They will also encourage greater readership by scientists throughout the world who have accepted English as the international language of science.

References

1. Dinkel A, Berth H, Borkenhagen A, Brahler E: On raising the

international dissemination of German research: does changing

publication language to English attract foreign authors to

publish in a German basic psychology research journal? Exp

Psychol 2004, 51:319-328.

2. Yamazaki S, Zhang H: Internationalization of the English-language

journals in Japan in life sciences. Nippon Seirigaku

Zasshi 1997, 59:98-104.

3. Montgomery S: Of towers, walls, and fields: perspectives on

language in science. Science 2004, 303:1333-1335.

4. Hayes-Rivas JJ: One world scientific language? Science 2004,

304:1243.

5. Beller F.K: The future of the German language in science.

Gynakol Geburtshilfliche Rundsch 2000, 40:50-54.

6. Nelde PH: Suggesting a new European language policy. Coll

Antropol 2004, 28 Suppl 1:13-26.

7. Walvoort HC: Medical science in the Dutch language. Ned Tijdschr

Geneeskd 1997, 141:5-7.

8. Hasse W, Fischer RJ: The medical profession against Anglicization

in medicine. Results of a survey. Dtsch Med Wochenschr

2003, 128:1338-1341.

9. Olivier C, Casseyre P, Vayssairat M: How to assure the international

future of medical and scientific Francophone periodicals.

J Mal Vasc 1989, 14:283-286