provocative opinion
Doctorates and languages
A Heidelberg artist named Hirn once inscribed above his studio door the words Es wird kein Ding so seh6n gemacht,
es
k m m t kein Spotter der's vemcht.
W&'st du nu? fniher hergekommen; dann hbtt' irh Rat von dir genommen. Nun gehe hin und schweige still, Es maeh' ein Jeder wie er's will
Or, liberally rendered in English No man can make his work immune to scoffen and their scornful tune. Had you come sooner, in a trice I would have taken your advice. With work, not words, let each reply, and on his own best self rely.
Taking artist Hirn's view of language requirements for science degree candidates, we blame no one for the system's weaknesses as we see them, and earn no kudos for the improvements we think we could make. Traditiolally, candidates had to show that they could read scientific German and French, which a century ago ranked along with English after Latin lost its sway. A scientist who could not read them limped painfully in trying to keep step with progress. Requiring some linguistic skill in PhD candidates made good sense when first practiced, and makes better sense now. Tempora mutantuv, and situations change with them. Russian has been second to English in science publication for some time. In terms of nations, not languages, Japan outruns the two Germanys, and France has dropped below Italy. Scientifically and culturally, German and French have potent linguistic competitors. Other Germanic tongues are prominent in science and the humanities. On the Romance side, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese serve large populations with extensive literature; Rumanian is important though less voluminous. Slavic languages other than Russian loom large in the picture. In population served, Chinese tops them all. Its science literature is kept viable by Nationalist China, and by communist China's need for science and technology in a competitive world. Academically, no language proposed by a candidate should be arbitrarily rejected. If it seems undesirable, yet the candidate demonstrates its utility for his intended career, it should be accepted if academically feasible. Thus, Icelandic would aid a specialist in sub-Arctic agriculture. His choice should be approved if an examiner in Icelandic is available. Skeptics as to cultural value should read sagas in English translation (if they could read them in Icelandic they would not be skeptics). Chemical & Engineering News, 88,84-86, (6 June 1966).
740
/
Journal of Chemicol Education
Requiring linguistic skill for the doctorate has weaknesses. Students quickly capitalize on idiosyncracies among professors. One examiner told students what German or French book to bring, and always assigned the first page of the preface. Another merely asked, "What would you likc to rcad"? so prepared candidates surprised him with their glibness. Too many candidates have sweated out the examinations, graduated with much or little or no cum laude, and promptly forgot all their German and French except the swear words. The number and kind of expedients for passing would provide ample material for an instructive doctoral dissertation. Of course, such ingenuity is not limited to passing in languages. Administration of language requirements is sometimes enfeebled by over-emphasis on reading science literature and under-emphasis (if any) on cultural and wits-sharpening benefits. A case could even be made for skill in reading foreign comic strips and humor. Any student who can understand and enjoy the Soviet satirical comic magazine Krokodil, or the far older German Simplicissimus, would be on sound ground for science reading. Comic strips and humor magazines, though not recommended as examination material, would reliably test a candidate's capacity to find mental stimulus and cultural benefits in foreign literature. With this capacity, practice will readily give him fluency in science reading. Lacking it, such reading will be a deadly bore and his fluency will follow into limbo that of innumerable degree-adorned predecessors. A monolingual scientist can ignore foreign references, accepting ignorance of possibly important information, or depend on an abstract or on a translation (well over a hundred foreign journals are now available in cover-tocover English translation). But science doctorates are not for persons who are scientists and nothing more. They are for people who must live and work with people, including scientists and laymen. Learning foreign tongues should add to their livability on all fronts. The mental stimulus in language study is synergistic; adding a second tongue to English gives total facility greater than their sum. The training which sharpened language sense can also put a keener edge on science thinking. Conversely, keen scientific perception can whet linguistic wits. A third benefit is cultural. Centuries ago, scientists had an ivory tower view of the ignorant masses; they needed culture. The masses, looking on scientists in awe or in brow-tapping contempt, also needed culture. Statistics vary and can even deceive, but they illustrate the drawbacks of linguistic isolation. Chemical Abstracts reports for 1965l over 60% of its source material in English, a fifth in Russian, a sixth in German and
French together, an eighth in the next 13 languages. The Soviet Referatiunyi Zhurnal reports2 sources from more than 70 languages (19 in the Soviet Union). When the old rigid requirement of German and French was relaxed, Russian was among the first new acceptances. A truly liberal standard would be to accept any of the 60-plus languages covered by Chemical Abstracts, or even the Soviet 70-plus. But liberality can be overdone; logistic problems, such as finding a competent examiner, would rule out many of the far-out languages. a M ~ ~ ~ ~A.n I., o CHERNYI, v , A. I., and GILYAREVSKII, R. S. "Osnovu Informatiki (Fundamentals of Informatics)." (2nd ed.).
There are other channels for increasing linguistic competence among American scientists. Teaching them to express thoughts clearly and concisely in technically and grammatically correct English would be an advance. Many graduates lack fluency in spoken or written English; only a minority are skilled in both. As elsewhere, this call for training scientists in language will meet with doubters. Artist Hirn's advice is good; we should just plug away and do our best. Julian F. Smith 303 24th Ave., N. E. Hickory, N o r t h Carolina 28601
Volume 46, Number 1 I , November 1969
/
741
