-- / --
Originally appeared in 1973 as part of Toward a Concept Inventory, under the title "Language and translation problems". Also published in International Associations, 1974, pp. 210-212. Also in: Les Problèmes du Langage dans la Société Internationale (Compte rendu du colloque, Paris 28-29 mars 1974). Bruxelles, Union des Associations Internationales, 1975, pp. 151-153
It would be optimistic to expect wide acceptance of the system if it was based on one language only. The UNISIST Study notes (pp. 72-73) that:
The chances of securing international acceptance of English as the standard language of science are, in present circumstances, very poor.
Apart from these aspects, there is the extremely serious problem that social
scientists in one language group tend to either ignore foreign language material
or find it "less relevant" to their particular concerns. This is particularly
significant across the English, French, German divide. Concepts given in foreign
languages may be difficult to comprehend if one is less than completely at home
with the language in question. An unconscious hostility to concepts expressed
in foreign languages may even build up.
A recent study of 1000 social science research information users in Great Britain has just been completed (52). It shows that 18% of the sample read English only, 75% read French, and 27% read German. Of those who said they were able to read a foreign language, only one-third regularly scan literature in that language. There is even a reluctance to follow up articles in another language.
It was also noted that 22% make no use of abstracts or indexes, 35% never use bibliographies, 22% do not use library catalogues, and 18% do not consult the librarian.
There is also the possibility that a concept may first be expressed or may
only be expressible, in a given foreign language. It would be an advantage
to be able to file it as such and worry about the translation afterwards. The
author who has done much to emphasize the difficult-to-comprehend contrasts
between meanings in the standard Indo-European languages and those in other
language groups is Benjamin Lee Whorf (53). He suggests that language becomes
a classification and organization of experience in its own right. As such each
may be significantly different from the other and may structure the forms and
categories by which the individual not only communicates but also analyzes
nature, perceives or neglects particular phenomena or relationships, and constructs
his model of the world.
A striking example of the possible differences is given by Marshall Walker in discussing the social factors which affect scientific models:
"The language of the Wintu Indians of California seems to indicate a way of thinking quite different from our own. Imagine the surface of a table with a book lying on it. The remainder of the surface is bare. in English one describes the situation by saying "The book is on the table". In Wintu one says, "The table bumps". The English phrase has already committed the speaker to an entire analytical philosophy of the situation: (1) there are two objects; (2) there is a polarity such that one object is above the other; (3) there is an implication that the book is supported by the table. None of this analysis is present in the Wintu sentence, which is purely topological .... The scientist who wishes to be as objective as possible in his study of the external world will try to free himself from the possible constraints of his own language." (54).
Such languages may not have parts of speech or separate subject and predicate. in Indian Languages such as Nootke and Hopi events as a whole are signified. Instead of "a light flashed" or "it flashed", Hopi uses a single term, "flash", to signify that a happening has occurred. There is thus no distinction between tenses, for the Hopi has no general notion or intuition of time as a smooth flowing continuum in which everything in the universe proceeds at an equal rate, out of a future, through a present, into a past. Marshall Walker also notes (p.103-4):
"The student of science also has a vital need for comparative linguistics in order to acquire experience in the isolation of concepts from their language matrix. The usual language departments of a university are not much help for this type of study .... There is need for a course for undergraduates (not language majors) which is designed to illustrate the expression of concepts by different language families. Pending the arrival of such courses the student of science will have to do it himself as best he can."
David Bohm, a theoretical physicist interested in Piaget's and Gibson's work on the problems of perception, gives detailed arguments against permanence of "entities" and concludes (55):
"it is clear that both in common experience and in scientific investigations, the objects, entities, substances, etc., that we actually experience, perceive, or observe, have always (thus far) shown themselves to be only relatively invariant in their properties, this relative invariance having often been mistaken for absolute permanence" (p. 14)
"It is evident then that by considering entities and structures as relatively invariant, with an as-yet-unknown domain of invariance, we avoid making unnecessary and unprovable assumptions concerning their absolute invariance. Such a procedure has enormous advantages in research, because one of the main sources of difficulty in the development of new concepts - not only in physics but also in the whole of science - has been the tendency to hold onto old concepts beyond their domain of validity." (p. 121-2)
It may astonish many people to know that contemporary linguistics has concluded that translation between languages is theoretically impossible. Chomsky notes (p.202):
"In fact, although there is much reason to believe that languages are to a significant extent cast in the same mold, there is little reason to suppose that reasonable procedures (not involving extralinguistic information) of translation are in general possible."
Georges Mounin, who notes the same conclusion, has summarized the theoretical difficulties prior to considering why, how, and within what limits the practical operation of translations is relatively possible (56). Some of the difficulties he notes argue against any attempt to force this project into a unilingual mode.
If the attempt is made to translate every theoretical formulation into English, before filing, there will be a hold-up similar to that associated with the modelling activity. There is also bound to be disagreement as to the adequacy of translations. It may be preferable therefore to conceive of a Translation Phase in parallel with the filing, modelling, and term allocation phases, and to give priorities to the translation of given terms according to need.
For further updates on this site, subscribe here