English in the sciences

Scientific research is the field whose linguistic practices have been the most thoroughly studied. It has been the subject of several sociolinguistic studies (particularly Skudlik 1990, Truchot 1990, Ammon 1998 and 2001) and numerous symposia. Official reports record the languages used in publications and databases. All the analyses show clearly the factors that have led to the large-scale use of English.

After the Second World War much of the world's scientific potential became concentrated in the United States. One of the consequences was the leading position acquired by that country in scientific publishing and in the storage and dissemination of scientific and technical information (STI). The design, production and dissemination of knowledge then became internationalised and globalised, especially in the fields with the greatest economic implications. However, American research remained at the centre of the process and the United States has always been strongly involved for strategic reasons (East-West relations, US business interests).

Observers (Confland, in Cassen, 1990) have shown that, of some 100,000 scientific journals published worldwide, 50% were in English but that what counts is the "hard core" of world scientific publishing, composed of about 4,000 to 5,000 journals. The latter publish articles which serve as references. It is these journals that receive priority indexing in computerised files, i.e. in databases set up for the collection and circulation of scientific information. They belong to a very small number of international publishing houses and appear for the most part entirely in English.

Moreover, the United States has the greatest concentration of databases, as well as the most influential ones, such as the Science Citation Index (SCI) of the Institute for Scientific Information in Philadelphia. Over 90% of the information in these US databases is extracted from articles in English taken mostly from English-language journals. In European databases the position given to other languages is hardly any greater and references in English predominate.

Initially established in the publication of papers, the primacy of English subsequently spread to other fundamental language practices in scientific activity. It has become the main language for access to scientific information because researchers tend to look first of all in the "hard core" for information, which is increasingly sent over the Internet. With the internationalisation of science, English is tending to become the dominant, and often the sole, language used for discussions in symposia, congresses and similar events. Its use extends to exchanges of work in scientific laboratories where there are foreign researchers, especially if they are in countries whose languages are localised and little taught.

The organisation of research at a European level also tends to promote the use of English in academic circles and in publications, networks,programmes and institutions. The European Union's scientific programmes, for example, are managed entirely in English, from invitations to tender to completion.

Most journals of repute published in other languages have considered it necessary to resort to English if they are to secure an international audience.

Examples are Les Annales de l'Institut Pasteur, Psychologische Forschung, Physikalische Zeitung and Nuovo Cimento. Languages unable to act as a transmitter of scientific results become devalued. The devaluation process extends even to users of those languages. This is particularly the case with researcher-assessment procedures, which routinely credit work in English.

Ammon (1998) reports a comparative test in which the English versions of the same articles were systematically assessed more favourably than those in Dutch or the Scandinavian languages.

Languages marginalised as regards the transmission of scientific results tend also to be excluded from the field of university research. In Sweden the practice of writing doctoral theses in English is now common to most disciplines. A study performed at Uppsala University in 1993-94 (Gunnarson, 2001) shows that nearly 100% of theses in the exact sciences, engineering and medicine, 75% in the arts and 66% in the social sciences are written in English. In Switzerland, English is increasingly chosen even though it is a country where the more widely spoken languages are used. In 1975, 8% of theses were in English, reaching 20% in 1991.

English made rapid strides in the 1990s, especially in the German-speaking universities. In 1996, 61% of theses in the natural sciences at Zurich University were in English, compared with 39% at Lausanne University (Murray, Dingwall 2001). In Germany doctoral theses may be in English as well as German. Ammon (1998) shows that English is widely used. In the majority of theses the use of English is combined with that of German, and for a smaller but not insignificant number English alone is used.

Not all languages are necessarily abandoned for the purposes of transmitting scientific and technical knowledge. Studies and summaries used by researchers when they wish to take stock of their discipline as a whole as it relates to their particular specialisation or to obtain information about other disciplines are published in the more widely used languages. In French this is the case with the journals Médecine-Sciences and Comptes-rendus de l'Académie des Sciences or, for a wider public, the monthly review La Recherche. However, suchopportunities to transmit scientific information are rarer in the less widely used languages. One consequence is the increasing shortage of terminology which afflicts them and causes them to be further devalued.

The use of English is nowadays seen as unquestioned. Yet this has not always been so. In a book on languages of scientific communication in the 1970s (The Foreign Language Barrier, 1983), J.A.Large noted that part of world research was published at that time in languages other than English and advised English-speaking scientists to learn foreign languages. (To be continued in Unit 2-13)

SUMMARY WRITING. READING STRATEGIES FOR EXPLICATION OF KEY FACTS AND IDEAS GIVEN IN THE TEXT

Instruction:Writing a good summary of the text requires practice and skills. Below are recommendations for students, abridged after Christine Bauer-Ramazani, Consultant for Integrating Technology into Online and On-campus Learning and Teaching, Saint Michael's College,Colchester, Vermont. The recommendations are published in the Internet and free of copyright limitations. You are to read, understand, and work at Claude Truchot’s study with the purpose of acquiring summary preparation strategies to employ in your prospective professional activity. There are a few preparatory steps you can learn now to avoid the worry before you’re in the heat of the moment. Give these proven study tips a try and see how much better you feel while doing your real assignment.

Before writing the summary – read, mark,and annotate the original:

· highlight the topic sentence;

· highlight key points/key words/phrases;

· highlight the concluding sentence;

· outline each paragraph in the margin;

Take notes on the following:

· the source (author – first/last name, title, date of publication, volume number, place of publication, publisher, URL, etc.);

· the main idea of the original (paraphrased);

· the major supporting points (in outline form);

· major supporting explanations (e.g. reasons/causes or effects);

Preparing to Write:To write a good summary it is important to thoroughly understand the

material you are working with. Here are some preliminary steps in writing a summary.

· Skim the text, noting in your mind the subheadings. If there are no subheadings, try to divide the text into sections. Consider why you have been assigned the text. Try to determine what type of text you are dealing with. This can help you identify important information.

· Read the text, highlighting important information and taking notes.

· In your own words, write down the main points of each section.

· Write down the key support points for the main topic, but do not include minor detail.

· Go through the process again, making changes as appropriate.