Comment
The universal language any scholars have pointed out that language is one of the factors that define a culture. Linguists have shown how language reveals not only the uniqueness of a society, but also how the society relates to others and to the environment. The study of how languages evolve and relate to one another is fascinating to both experts and students, and nothing is more satisfying to a novice than to learn enough of a language to get along in a foreign country. Now, however, the globalization of the world economy has convinced many people that a common world language is necessary in order for us to function efficiently and to communicate effectively with people around die world. Critics of mis position say that diversity of language, like diversity of other aspects of culture, is desirable and should not be lost. Homogenization of people and places is already taking place too rapidly, they say, and we will have a very boring world if these trends continue. The need for a common language is not a new idea, of course. The Polish physician Ludwig Zamenhof created Esperanto in 1877, a "synthetic" language that is still promoted passionately by its advocates. Esperanto is purportedly simple and neutral, overcoming the hostility of people to adopt the language of a foreign power. On the other hand, unless things change dramatically, there seems little chance that this new language will be adopted on a worldwide basis. Rather, the evidence is growing that English will more likely become the international language of commerce, science, and many other fields. England may deserve this honor by the way, but America does not, given the relative illiteracy of this country in foreign languages. But like it or not, the power of the American economy and technology is driving English to become the required language in the global economy of the future. In a way, I wish that this were not necessary. I wish that we could develop smart algorithms that would translate from every language to one that the reader
M
could comprehend. I wish that it were not necessary for us to require that authors send their manuscripts in English, but I know that this is a long way off. We have no practical way to handle papers in foreign languages, nor could we serve our readers well with a diversity of languages in the papers we publish. Given our global mission, we have no alternative but to require that authors submit not only in English, but in acceptable English. By this, I mean that the manuscript should be well composed, so that our reviewers can determine the quality of the science without being distracted or confused by English that is seriously flawed. When we receive a manuscript that does not meet this criterion, we suggest that the author have it edited by someone who is both proficient in English and technically literate. Some authors may even choose to have the paper translated from their native language by such a person. We are aware that this places hardships on some of our colleagues in other countries where English is not the standard alternative to their native language. But to protect our editors, reviewers, and readers, we will continue to send back manuscripts that do not meet our standard. We do so with some regret and humility, knowing that it is unfair if we truly rate the science as the important ingredient in the papers we publish. We trust that our foreign authors will understand our dilemma. One other point: To those of you who are training graduate students who wish someday to publish in an English language journal, may I suggest that you have them write in English often, very often.
William H. Glaze, Editor (
[email protected])
© 2000 American Chemical Society SEPTEMBER 1, 2000 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 3 6 9 A
