# Monolingualism and creativity: Scientific discourse and linguistic diversity in human and social sciences

Dominique Maingueneau

► To cite this version:

Dominique Maingueneau. Monolingualism and creativity: Scientific discourse and linguistic diversity in human and social sciences. Mètode Revista de difusió de la investigació, 2015, 6, pp.115-119. 10.7203/metode.6.4552. hal-03995129

HAL Id: hal-03995129

https://hal.sorbonne-universite.fr/hal-03995129

Submitted on 17 Feb 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
MONOLINGUALISM AND CREATIVITY

SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE AND LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY IN HUMAN
AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

DOMINIQUE MAINGUENEAU

Université Paris-Sorbonne

To speak of «scientific rhetoric» is to emphasise the resources activated by a
researcher so the recipient will share his or her point of view. Among those
resources, there is an evident one we tend to forget: the natural language it uses.
The problem, nonetheless, presents itself differently for hard sciences and for
human and social sciences. For the first there is a sort of consensus regarding the
objectives and procedures of research activity and, therefore, competence is
established among individuals, who are subjected to the same set of rules.
Regarding human and social sciences, the activity is carried out by groups who
disagree on the legitimacy of goals and procedures and who, therefore, do not play
exactly by the same rules. We will now consider the latter case.

When we reflect upon the languages used by researchers, we tend naturally to
ask ourselves whether or not monolingualism favours the production of
knowledge. We do not try to argue in defence of language diversity, as though it
were an animal species in need of protection. The idea that researchers should
write in their mother tongue because that is the language of their country shows
an ignorance of sociolinguistic reality. In the second century AD, a philosopher
of Lyon could not have written in Gaulish, despite the fact that Latin and Greek
were foreign languages for him; in the twenty-first century, economists will not
publish in Slovak, even if that is their mother tongue.

Having several languages is, in principle, an obstacle for science. Therefore,
would the most immediate remedy be to have everyone use the same language? It
would seem so, and the natural candidate for that role in the contemporary world
is academic English, as long, of course, as the scientific community carefully
controls its use and watches over the clarity of expression, the accuracy of
definitions, the rigour of reasoning and methodology and the respect for
bibliographic standards.

Actually, reasoning in terms of « language » cannot be avoided; we have to
consider the effective conditions for the production and circulation of knowledge
«discourses». Researchers only exist within communities that legitimise them,
that validate their statements; these communities are associated with different
kinds of discourse, oral (seminars, symposia, conferences, debates...) or written
(dissertations, research projects, manuals, collective works, journals, posters...).
Within this vast repertoire, the most important discursive genre is, surely, the
journal. Scientific journals, strictly hierarchical, are the essential providers of
academic authority. The maxim «publish or perish» refers to scientific journals,
where the researcher's career is built: contracts, professional category, prestige.
This model completely dominates the hard sciences, and is now in the process of
conquering human and social sciences. We will, therefore, focus our attention on
them.

International journals that are not associated with a particular school or
country are the most prestigious; thanks to these publications, despite their
diversity, a field of knowledge can display its identity, although competition is
clearly greater. Let us imagine that the most prestigious journals are all
transnational and Anglophone. Their audience is composed of individuals with
very different religious and ethnic affiliations and from very diverse intellectual
traditions. Logically, the readers do not usually share a cultural background
beyond globalised expertise. Since these journals are the ones that offer the most
symbolic benefit, they are also subjected to the strongest control. Those who
submit a paper are in a weak position if they try to deviate from the dominant rules
or assumptions of the community. What they write must match the expectations
of the reviewers who will evaluate their text. Yet they can be from any country or
research school, so authors must anticipate the review process, adapting in
advance to the dominant customs and predominant criteria in previous issues of
the journal. Meanwhile, evaluators must adapt to the image they have as a
globalised reviewer. This is how they expect to legitimise their status as experts.

As a result of these factors, the authors of papers adopt some anticipated
defence strategies. Particularly: a) Introducing as many references as possible to
the most internationally cited authors in a given discipline. By using these
recognised authority references, the authors legitimise their belonging to a
particular field of knowledge. b) Removing every reference to cultural heritage
not shared by a globalised reader. Philosophy, for instance, is not excluded from
an international journal on human and social sciences, but authors prefer citations
to recent thinkers who write in English: Austin, Grice, Searle, Wittgenstein...
rather than Hegel, Husserl or Bergson. c) Avoiding deviation from the most
common stylistic rules in the discipline: from lexical to compositional aspects.
Scientific texts use a particularly restricted repertoire in terms of vocabulary and
syntax, making it easier for authors who are not native English speakers.

The power gap between the would-be publisher and the journal is widened
by the fact that most writers' mother tongue is not English, so they turn necessity
into virtue: when one is not a native speaker it is in one's interest not to risk being
rejected.

Logically, a dynamic such as this tends more towards the impoverishment
of scientific creation than to originality, more to consensus than to discrepancy,
given the fact that the papers that produce less original content have more
possibilities of being published without much hassle.

The French writer Georges Perec (1936-1982) published in 1974 a scientific
paper parody written in English: «Experimental demonstration of the tomatopic
organization in the soprano (Cantatrix sopranica L.)». The subject of the paper is
absurd (the study of the reaction of a singer when pelted with tomatoes), but it
scrupulously respects every rule for the submission of experimental science
papers. Here is the beginning:

As observed at the turn of the century by Marks & Spencer (1899), who first
named the «yelling reaction» (YR), the striking effects of tomato throwing
on Sopranoes have been extensively described. Although numerous
behavioral (Zeeg & Puss, 1931; Roux & Combaluzier, 1932; Sinon et al.,
1948), pathological (Hun & Deu, 1960), comparative (Karybb &
Szyla, 1973) and follow-up (Else & Vire, 1974) studies have permitted a
valuable description of these typical responses, neuroanatomical, as well as
neurophysiological data, are, in spite of their number, surprisingly confusing.
In their henceforth late twenties' classical demonstrations, Chou & Lai (1927
a, b, c, 1928 a, b, 1929 a, 1930) have ruled out the hypothesis of a pure facio-
facial nociceptive reflex that has been advanced for many years by a number
of authors (Mace & Doyne, 1912; Payre & Tairnelle, 1916; Sornette &
Billevayzé, 1925). (Perec, 1991: 13)

Reading this text makes us realise that the meticulous respect for the rules of
this discursive genre, associated with the dominance of scientific English, is
enough to confer strong authority and veracity to the document. Luckily, the
author, as in other parodies, embellishes the text with comical bibliographic
references («Chou et Lai» the name of a Chinese politician, «Payre et Tairnelle»,
homonymous of “Eternal Father” in French...) to remind the reader that it was
all just nonsense.

The parody inevitably reminds us of the famous « Sokal affair »: the
physicist Alan Sokal managed to publish a nonsensical paper titled
«Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity» (Sokal, 1996) in a prestigious American journal, *Social Text*. The content of the paper was, indeed, pure absurdity, but adhered to the style criteria of the journal. Sokal put the hoax in motion in order to ridicule postmodern thinkers. But we could also learn the lesson that adhering to the usual rules of a discursive community is enough to be convincing, regardless of quality.

## DANGERS OF A GLOBALISED SPACE

In a globalised monolingual space for the production and circulation of texts, the main specialists of a discipline write in the same journals, are members of the same honorary or advisory boards, participate in the same conferences, in the same international seminars, etc. Some attitudes, such as a natural fellow feeling, make them pay little attention to theoretical conflicts. The values of community integration predominate and the debates are minor issues.

However, research quality is constantly threatened by two opposing dangers. The first, most visible, is sectarianism; the second, which is not highlighted as often but is also real, is consensus, which progressively imposes routines on research. If we do not preserve a variety of linguistic circulation and evaluation spaces, we run the risk of reaching a situation we could categorise as academic diglossia, which is unfavourable for the creation of knowledge. researchers are (more and more as time passes) professionals who do their job and avoid challenging dominant assumptions.

The ability to transcend particularisms is not necessarily a factor for intellectual creation. If that were the case, then the Netherlands or Belgium – in contact with German, English and French traditions – or Latin American countries – in contact simultaneously with the USA and Europe – would be the most creative countries. Actually, it would be better to accept that there is no
contradiction in human and social sciences between the local character of the
production of knowledge and its vocation to universality. If we want to erase any
ascription to prereflexive experience, located geographically and historically, the
production of knowledge risks becoming a matter of institutions that validate
themselves based on following routines.

From this point of view, we can think that the existence of a plurality of
languages for scientific communication, partnered with broad circulation spaces,
can be positive. The readers of globalised journals are, by nature, different from
those we might call «idiomatic» (that is, those that are associated with a language
or group of languages, such as Scandinavian or Romance languages). In the case
of «idiomatic» readers, the common cultural background gains importance. The
writers know they are writing for a readership who not only work in the same
discipline, but share many cultural references and a number of epistemological
assumptions with them. The circulation space of the journal is more restricted,
so an author can impose their individuality more easily. In this relatively
protected market, it is not necessary to constantly offer evidence of the right to
publish a paper adapted to the lowest common denominator of a global audience.
This diversity also favours a more intimate relationship with language, which is
always important for conceptual work in human and social sciences or
philosophy. It also helps to open the discipline to currents other than the
dominant international ones.

If we do not preserve a variety of spaces of linguistic circulation and
evaluation, we run the risk of reaching a situation we could categorise as
academic diglossia, which is unfavourable for the creation of knowledge; there
will be, on the one hand, international English-language publications, unoriginal
prestige sources; and on the other, documents published in dozens of vernacular
languages, «local» texts, less prestigious and with different levels of quality.
Paradoxically, conformity will prevail in globalised journals, the ones people
read, which are an authoritative voice, not so much due to the will of the
publications administrators – who are looking for the opposite result – but due
to the internal logic of the entity.

LANGUAGE FOR THE PRODUCTION AND TRANSMISSION OF
KNOWLEDGE

We should, therefore, not confuse the language of production with the
language of transmission. It is not a matter of rejecting English as the dominant
language for the worldwide circulation of knowledge, but of combating the idea
that widespread monolingualism would favour, by definition, the creation of
knowledge. The important thing is to preserve the traditions that lie beyond the
alternatives of global and local. Here, «global» refers to inquiries adapted to
worldwide dominant assumptions that favour the careers of researchers, eager to
feel part of a globalised community. «Local» refers to marginalized currents,
schools or territories (national or regional spaces, as well as a university or a
university department), without dissemination or prestige, which develop within
the cosy space of a group withdrawn into its concepts and values.

Regarding the Internet, these traditions cannot be circumscribed to a compact
national or multinational space, and they are stronger when they can join a related
language or group of languages. Furthermore, far from imprisonment them in a
space, it allows researchers to participate in different spaces, with every
imaginable form of hybridization: British researchers share the English language
with the USA, but at the same time they are European; Argentinian researchers
share the Spanish language with Spaniards but they are also South American.
French researchers are at the same time in the international French-speaking
sphere and in the sphere of Romance languages, in a European space and,
obviously, a French space. Linguistic diversity does not do justice to this diversity,
but it helps to preserve it.
We may, however, ask ourselves if the term tradition is well suited. It seems
to be a homogeneous set linked to national roots and to a language; in addition, it
favours a relationship with the past to the detriment of synchronic interactions.
Rather than «traditions», we should talk about «confrontation spaces», a notion
that certainly implies a frontier with the external space, but also internal frontiers,
the existence of different stances at the core of the same space. Due to their
diversity, these confrontation spaces make the theoretical assumptions upon
which each is based clearly visible. If we adopt this perspective, we are tempted
to dissociate prestige and monolingualism. Particularly, this means that interests
favour the emergence of prestigious journals in different languages, instead of
directly associating prestige with the English language. Thus, we must not confuse
the language of production with the language for the dissemination of knowledge.
It is common for English, as the dominant language for international exchanges,
to be used to disseminate the content of human and social sciences. It is not so
clear or evident that its use necessarily guarantees the quality of knowledge
production. Indeed, there is something disturbing in favouring conflict, but it is a
necessary condition for intellectual innovation, which is the ultimate goal of
research. Researchers work not only to produce knowledge, but to preserve the
conditions that allow the production of knowledge adapted to scientific ethics.

REFERENCES

Perec, G. (1991). *Cantatix sopranica L. et autres écrits scientifiques*. Paris: Seuil.

Sokal, A. (1996). *Transgressing the boundaries: Towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity*. *Social Text*, 46/47, 217-252.