 |
 |
Dear forum As previous contributors have noted, language proficiency - in this country at least - is often regarded as a symbol of elitism. Yet, in other countries it seems that it is not that unusual to speak a second or third language - especially amongst the academic community of course. I'm working on an EU project at the moment and everyone, apart from most of the English/Scottish colleagues, speaks a second language (ie English) with varying degrees of proficiency. The English/Scottish colleagues invariably feel guilty about their lack of ability and it would certainly make collaborative research so much easier if we could all speak a couple of languages. It is certainly true that there have been times when the less fluent speakers of English have felt excluded because they have been unable to follow all the discussions. The real outcome of this is that it undermines their chances of participating in future EU research networks...surely not fair! Anyway, one reason why our European colleagues all speak English is surely because much greater emphasis is placed on language learning in their education systems. Other people have already shown how this can in turn be traced to the world dominance of English and related socio-economic/political systems. Yet, it is unrealistic to expect to turn this dominance around by merely putting more non-English references in our papers! Surely a better, long term, way to tackle angloidism is through a drastic reform of the British educational system - ie. a bottom-up approach. This reform should go right from primary level to university. A second language should not be regarded as an elite qualification, but should be a basic part of every person's education. Idealistic maybe, but although I joked about the references, I do agree that academics should take a lead. When I wrote my Phd, I used quotes collected from respondents during fieldwork in Brittany. I used their words - ie. in French, but was advised to translate these into English because otherwise people (ie. examiners, supervisors) would not be able to understand them. I felt that I lost some of the 'authenticity' of those words - I 'anglicised' turns of phrase into an approximate translation of their meaning. There are all sorts of issues involved in translation - as Chad Staddon mentioned - and this message is already too long! But the point is, that in conforming to the demands of the 'British geographic academy' I added another building block to the fortress Angloid. It's just one example, perhaps, of a rigidity in attitudes to different languages and expressions.. If this debate does nothing else, at least it may help to undermine such entrenched views... If you've read this far, apologies if I've rambled - and thanks!! Moya Moya Kneafsey Division of Geography University of Coventry Priory Street Coventry CV1 5FB Tel: 01203 838409 Fax: 01203 838447 [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%