Message-ID: <199912032108.QAA28894@pilot002.cl.msu.edu> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 16:08:49 -0500 From: Donald Z Osborn <mailto:osborndo@PILOT.MSU.EDU> Subject: Re: Language, Tech. transfer, & Devt. To: mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
A key distinction should have been made between "domestication" and dissemination in my earlier posting. Science & knowledge of all sorts is most certainly disseminated and borrowed in "language(s) of others." The meaning of "domestication," as I understand it, goes beyond learning, having the sense of "owning," incorporating in knowledge systems, and being able to carry it forth in a way consonant with the needs and aspirations of a people.It is certainly possible for individuals to learn and master science - even the most culturally bound (even arcane) sciences / knowledge systems - in a language different than their mother tongue. It is even possible for knowledge to be transferred from one land to another in a language foreign to the latter (or to both). For me the fundamental questions here are how deep & wide an effect can such a transfer have and how beneficial will it be without being literally translated into the language(s) of the recipient/borrower, thus enabling it to be rephrased in terms more fully resonant (or dissonant) with their knowledge system(s).
Cyril mentions several instances as showing that science can be "domesticated" in languages of others, but as I look at them, they seem instead to be primarily instances both of the processes of domestication within a language & culture, and of "dissemination" beyond it (though I'm not a historian): · Greek: Perhaps here referring to the dissemination of Greek culture and knowledge in the Hellenistic period? My impression was that there was not a wide adoption of Greek language in the eastern Mediterranean/Middle East outside of Greek communities and inheritors of power in the aftermath of Alexander, and that the clear impact of the Greeks in these areas filtered through the languages and cultures they encountered and ruled. · Latin: the Romans (much like the Arabs and Western Europeans much later in history) seem to have incorporated knowledge of subjugated peoples into their own. Even if elite Romans would also learn Greek, would I be mistaken in suggesting they probably could have discussed Greek philosophy in Latin? Of course Latin also served as a vehicle for dissemination and preservation of knowledge, but not until the rise of vernaculars did education and dissemination of knowledge become widespread · English in India: I read recently that the vast majority of Indians do not speak English. Among the minority that does, the scientific achievements are of worldwide importance. But can one say that this represents "domestication"? Of the non-European examples you give, this one, nevertheless, does seem the strongest. Yet it is interesting that India also seems to have a vigorous interest in ICT language "localization." · Mandarin in China: Hanyu / Puthongua - actually the first language of most Chinese. And the written language is the same even for major languages like Cantonese (literate speakers of Mandarin and Cantonese who can't understand what each other is saying can communicate clearly in writing). Generally speaking scientific terms are translated into Chinese/Mandarin, an example (though not the only approach) to "domestication." What this means for the minority languages in that country is perhaps a more complex issue. · Arabic: Science following the rise of Islam flourished, as I understand it, precisely because the classics were translated into Arabic and commented and elaborated on in those terms by Arab scholars. The dynamics of the spread of Arabic, displacement of other languages, and dissemination of knowledge among peoples for whom Arabic was not the maternal language · German: At some point after Martin Luther, Germans relied less on Latin as the language of learning, and certainly German has been a leading language for research since the scientific revolution. But aside from researchers accessing documents in German (as they might in any language that they may read), it's not clear to me to what extent German is proposed or used as a language of learning in places where it is not also the mother tongue. · Russian: Another major language of research and publication, but don't know how much it would be used outside of a Russian dominated state (?). · French: French of course was long the language of diplomacy, and is still considered important for many non-Francophones as a language of culture. In former French colonies of Africa it is used in formal education, but can one really say science & progress have been "domesticated" in these countries in that language?
In another case, the technological and economic successes of Japan have in large part been due, I think, to the fact that they translated what they borrowed into Japanese, rephrased it in their own terms, involving uniquely Japanese interpretations and combinations with their own practices. In short, a thorough, and remarkably dynamic, "domestication" of science & progress (even with many foreign loanwords).
As for the issue Cyril mentioned about the language of play and that of science, at first reading that sounded perilously close to the old saw about "primitive" languages - or even Arabic (?!) - not being suited to scientific investigation and description. Something that people like Cheick Anta Diop (in the case of Wolof) thoroughly disproven. But on rereading I think that it would help to make the distinction between language as "langue" and as "parole" (a la Saussure as I vaguely remember). There are many ways of using language, and the speakers of a same language may have different kinds of discourse (streettalk, technical language, etc.) and of course one may "graduate" to different forms of language as one moves through life, assumes different roles: this is "parole" as I understand it. But one should not assume that the change in "parole" requires a change in "langue."
IMO there are two main issues as I see it (and this partly reiterates what I wrote before and also gets, I think, to some of what Nicole brought up). First is that there is already in international development some translation of concepts and techniques into the languages of people that use them, but this tends to be rather ad hoc, situational and unsystematic. There are a number of reasons for this of course (colonial legacy, low literacy, economics, politics, and even demographics). But I'm wondering how well technology transfer will "take" without being more systematically translated. And more than that how much "knowledge generation" involving unforeseen combinations of IK and exogenous science will be possible unless there is at least some significant effort to address this language issue from at least two directions: capacity (literacy) and availability (translations).
Some will groan, but maybe it is worth looking again at the concept of languages - representing ways of knowing - as resources for their speakers but also wider circles of humanity (nation, region, globe). dimension of cultural diversity - social analog to "biodiversity" (?).
This comes to the second point. There is no such thing as a right to learn in one's maternal language, and certainly if there were, its systematic application at this moment might finish by making learning, research, and communication all but impossible (without mentioning the material & human resources necessary). However, on the eve of the momentous calendar change we are about to experience, it is interesting to note that in many countries there are movements of various sorts to enhance the status of languages long marginalized or outright suppressed - including greater use in media, in education, among civic groups, even in government, and also in ICT localization. ICTs themselves seem to herald the potential both for greater use of English on one hand and for renaissance of (many) languages not generally used for science or connected with "progress." This evolution is one that I'm thinking development, and particularly those connected with various forms of technology transfer, should prudently stay on the cutting edge of.
There are caveats, of course. Language can be a politically difficult issue, and I don't mean to overlook that on one hand many people are too poor to care much about language issues, and on the other, many people are dubious about learning in some languages (even their maternal language) when they perceive that (an)other language presents more opportunity for themselves or their children.
Anyway I know this doesn't exhaust the issue (although it may exhaust the readers?).
-- Don Osborn mailto:osborndo@pilot.msu.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "A superficial culture, unsupported by a cultivated morality, is as `a confused medley of dreams.'" `Abdu'l-Baha (1876) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~