How Could International Scientific Communication Be Made Fairer and More Efficient?

I) One aspect of globalization is the emergence of one single global lingua franca of science, English. It has advantages for all scientists as well as for mankind as a whole in that it enhances international scientific cooperation and thus accelerates scientific progress.

II) The preference for the global lingua franca is stronger in the pure or theoretical sciences than in the applied sciences or especially the humanities.

III) Scientists are forced to use the global lingua franca if they want to follow new scientific developments or make their own contributions known internationally.

IV) The global lingua franca of science (and also of other fields) is the native tongue of a minority, the Anglophones, and a foreign tongue for the majority of the global scientific community. This entails various notable asymmetries.

V) One of these asymmetries is the Anglophone-centered flow of information, since Anglophones communicate almost exclusively in English and Non-Anglophones in English plus their own language, but much less in other languages.

VI) Another asymmetry is the vast advantage the Anglophones enjoy over the non-Anglophones in that they have to invest less in language learning and text production in the global lingua franca, but are still able to produce linguistically more refined texts with a superior impact on recipients. They also have to do less translating than non-Anglophone scientists in communicating with laymen and practitioners in their own society, e.g. in medicine. Non-Anglophones may even be handicapped cognitively in struggling with a foreign language or be psychologically strained because they feel, at least to some extent, isolated from their own society.

VII) It seems likely that the Anglophones' linguistic advantages carry over (to a so-far unknown extent) to various other advantages in scientific competition. These are most likely one factor, among others, which enhances
- Anglophone scientists' more frequent functioning as the gatekeepers (editors, reviewers etc.) of scientific publications (journals, conferences),
- Anglophone scientists' superior reputation,
- Their academic institutions' superior reputation,
- Their institutions' attracting the lion's share of internationally mobile scientists and students together with their academic and financial contributions (tuition fees and other spending),
- Anglophone scientific publishers' greater success as well as
- Anglophone countries' other economic and non-economic benefits which derive from competitive advantages in scientific communication.

VIII) The prominence of English in scientific communication further enhances the language's use value and prestige and individuals' motivation to study it, thus also stabilizing its function as the global lingua franca beyond science. The expansion of the global functions of English further increases the Anglophone individuals' and countries' linguistic advantages and derivative benefits.

IX) There seems to be a growing awareness not only among non-Anglophones, but also among Anglophones, of the non-Anglophones' linguistic disadvantages in scientific communication and a growing readiness, in principle, to work towards greater fairness (see, e.g., Benfield 2006; Flowerdew in print).

X) The explanation of how the present situation has evolved can largely be guessed from history and from fairly common knowledge. Roughly speaking, the three languages English, French and German were of similar importance for scientific communication at the beginning of the 20th century, with their countries forming the three main centers of science. As a consequence of WW I, Nazism, WW II, and the Soviet Union and its fall, the US rose to the position of the leading world power and the most prominent center of science and English, the global language of science. The rise of English was enhanced by more specific accompanying processes like the development of the most representative bibliographical data bases (e.g. Biological Abstracts, Chemical Abstracts, etc.) or the Citation Indices and by halo effects such as the extension of the prestige of the global scientific center to its language and vice versa (cf. Ammon 1998: 179-204).

XI) There is resentment against the Anglophones' communicative advantages among non-Anglophones, especially among those whose languages have until recently also had considerable international standing and lost it (cf. e.g. Durand 2001). Such resentment is sometimes expressed in criticism like that, for example, of the "American linguistic imperialism". Though there can be no doubt that the rise of English to its present standing has been in the Anglophones' best interest and been promoted by their countries, such criticism should be aware of the following circumstances:
- Most countries have tried or still try to spread their own language and would presumably have no qualms if it had become the global language of science.
- The effects of language promotion as such are usually quite limited. Thus France, for example, has been at least as eager as the Anglophone countries to spread its language, but been less successful. It has lacked the resources and the promises, including science, which language promotion needs to succeed.

XII) It now seems to be of primary importance to focus on the present situation and its shortcomings and to ask for possibilities for improvement. The search for improvements should be guided by the questions whether and in which respect the present language situation hampers the development of science and which solutions could guarantee more efficiency and fairness in global scientific cooperation.

Though the basic facts mentioned above are rather "safe knowledge" corroborated by extensive research (cf. e.g. Ammon 1998; 2001; Carli & Calaresu 2003), there remain a number of uncertainties, among perhaps others, which deserve further scrutiny, since they are of some importance for improving the present situation. These are the following:

i) To what extent is the data on the hegemony of English in science skewed in favor of English? The sources are often bibliographical data bases which may be biased accordingly.

ii) In which fields or "niche subjects", as they have been called, would it still be worthwhile regularly to check publications in languages other than English, and therefore to acquire at least passive skills (reading and perhaps oral understanding)?

iii) If it is true that Anglophone scientists have a strong preference for publications by their fellow countrypersons, to what extent is this due to language skills or to - perhaps stereotypical - perception of excellence and established prestige or, justifiably, to superior scientific quality and leadership in paradigm building?

iv) Is it true that the single lingua franca not only enhances the development of science but, at the same time, in other ways hampers it? What truth is there in the idea of the greater cognitive potential of several languages of science as compared to only one? To what extent is this idea, which is based on the Humboldt and Whorf hypothesis and has been put forth against the one global lingua franca, a valid argument? Is it more valid with respect to the social sciences and the humanities than to the natural sciences? Wouldn't it imply that non-Anglophones, who are at least bilingual, are better equipped cognitively than Anglophones and, in this respect, have an advantage?

v) There are two groups who seem to suffer disproportionately from the standing of English as the global lingua franca of science:
     a) Those who have experienced fundamental changes as to the language requirements they face to which they have not yet fully adjusted, either because, only recently, their language has lost its international standing or they have become involved in global communication (e.g. the French and Germans or, respectively, the Russians),
     b) Those with a language of great linguistic distance from English, which for them is therefore particularly hard to learn (e.g. the Chinese and Japanese).
While the problems of the former will presumably abate sooner or later, the problems of the latter will continue. Knowing these problems more thoroughly would help in designing a policy for international scientific communication that works towards greater fairness.

vi) What are the total economic benefits the Anglophones reap from their language's high standing in science? Such data, based on careful economic analysis, could also be useful for designing a fair language policy. Would there be any possibility of financial compensation, as has been suggested (van Parijs 2002)?

vii) Is there a real chance that technical progress in automatic translation and interpretation will eventually neutralize the present linguistic asymmetries (cf. e.g. Langdon-Neuner 2007: 5)?

viii) Is there a real chance that the continued expansion of English will at some point neutralize the linguistic asymmetries? Can English become a general skill also among non-Anglophones to the extent that Anglophone individuals and countries lose their linguistic superiority and derivative benefits (cf. Graddol 2006: 122 f.)?

ix) What are the chances of non-native-speakers breaking the natives' normative control of the language by transforming the language itself, namely into a pluricentric language with various equivalent varieties? In such a language, the, let's say, Chinese or Russian variety would be just as acceptable as the British or American variety, and all varieties would be mutually comprehensible (cf. Ammon 2003: 33 f.; 2006: 25f.).

Given a positive answer to viii) or ix) questions arise that would take us way beyond scientific communication such as in particular: What would be the consequences of such a development for the languages other than English and their communities?

Any such policy should be guided by the two principles of increasing, first, communicative and cognitive efficiency in science and, second, fairness in burden sharing, especially among members of different linguistic affiliation. Increasing fairness appears more urgent from the non-Anglophones' perspective, but efficiency should at least be maintained at the same time (cf. Gazzola & Grin's in print; van Parijs in print).

1) An important move would be an awareness campaign, i.e. publicizing the problem as widely as possible (an example is La Madeleine's article in Nature, 2007). Such a campaign could resemble those against gender discrimination through language and language use, although the issue is different in nature and, presumably, more difficult to resolve. Competent agents to kick off such a campaign would be scientific organizations like the AAAS. They could establish permanent committees for planning and carrying out the campaign as well as for collecting and conceiving proposals of practicable improvements. Among the potential improvements, the following should be considered, some of which have, on occasion, been put in practice.

2) Anglophone speakers should be sensitized to the possibility that non-Anglophone participants might have difficulty following their oral presentation. They should be encouraged to try a slower pace, to be careful with pronunciation as in "foreigner talk" and to rephrase complex passages.

3) At conferences, language services for participants who are unable to make their contribution in English should be expanded. For participants with severe difficulties in reading or pronunciation substitute presenters might be a solution (proposal by Benfield & Howard 2000: 647). For participants with insufficient writing skills more editing services should be made available. Depending on subjects and location it should also be possible to present papers in a specified number of other major languages, and to have them translated or interpreted. Financing would of course pose a challenge to organizers but could perhaps be achieved by a combination of (slightly) increased conference fees and extra contributions by those benefiting most from the services and from the linguistically privileged Anglophones.

4) For publications, more editorial support is an urgent desideratum. Presently, few publishers provide such support but rather name suppliers whose editing services are "at the authors own expense and risk" (to quote Blackwell Publishing: www.blackwellpublishing.com/bauthor/english_language.asp; 9 January, 2008). Editorial support can require intensive interaction between the author and the aid or translator (cf. Burrough-Boenisch 2006; Flowerdew in print). It has been recommended to find "a bilingual editor who is both familiar with the discipline and the journal" (Hartley et al 2007: 10). Others have recommended two aids: a language professional and a peer, in this order (Benfield & Feak 2006: 1). Such support can be hard to find and expensive, especially peers who are most important for scientific accurateness including terminology. Providing such services is a huge challenge for publishers but one that needs to be seriously tackled.

5) Training in writing scientific texts in English should be given more weight as part of studies, especially at the graduate level (cf. Murray & Dingwall 1997; Swales & Feak 2000).

6) Different from such "pragmatic" or immediately practical proposals are those of a "critical pragmatic approach" (label by Flowerdew in print: 22 f.). Some of them may appear utopian but should, nevertheless, be examined as to their feasibility. One which appears simple, at first sight, is the request for more language norm tolerance vis-à-vis non-native speakers or, as I have phrased it, "the non-native speakers' right to linguistic peculiarities" (Ammon 2003). It is not readily compatible with the prevalent view that, in science, authors should "express themselves fully" (Benfield & Feak 2006: 1730), if this implies finding not only exact but also fully idiomatic expressions. Reasonable as it sounds, it could mean eternal dependency of the non-natives on the native speakers of English. The big question is if there is a feasible alternative, since it seems close to impossible to delimit norm-tolerance from the useless "everything goes" which would preclude communication (Burrough-Boenisch 2006). A list of examples where tolerance seems reasonable might be helpful (use of definite article, Adverb-Verb word order, metaphors etc.). Knowledge about the language burden of non-natives could also go a long way towards reasonable tolerance.

7) A more utopian view follows from studies of "English as a lingua franca (ELF)" (e.g. Knapp & Meierkord 2002) and "International English (IE)" (e.g. Seidlhofer 2003), with proposals like "Globish" (Nerriére 2004) or - different from the former - "Globalish" (Ammon 2003: 33 f.; 2006: 25 f.) perhaps trespassing into Utopia. ELF and IE explore the reality of non-native English and how it functions for communication and thus provide a basis for (6) norm tolerance. Globish and Globalish aim at new languages, structurally related to English but conceptually different in that they follow their own, autonomous norms; therefore the new name. "Globish" is a simplified language with a limited vocabulary (1,500 words), thus resembling previous proposals (e.g. BASIC), while "Globalish" is not meant to be simpler than English, but a fully developed multi-centric language (cf. Clyne 1992). Its regional or national varieties - French, Japanese, British etc. Globalish - should all be accepted as equally correct. They would be codified by regional or national planning institutes which would cooperate globally in keeping the varieties from drifting apart, a task in which they would be supported by intensifying global communication. The idea is remotely related to Esperanto, but seems more realistic, since it would not invalidate the huge investments which have been made world-wide into the acquisition of English, but instead use them. Though the idea may seem irrelevant for international scientific communication at present, its consideration could at least put problems into perspective.