Thoughts on language requirements

[philstudent1991]

So I'm wondering what you guys think about language requirements. At the Continental programs it appears that you have to learn one or even two languages (Emory for instance) from the core group of philosophical languages (German, Greek, Latin, French and maybe Italian). At some programs (Texas and Duke for instance, I think, I could be wrong) a language may be required but it can be any language, or may only be required if the dissertation is devoted to a considerable extent to a given foreign author. Some programs (UNC and I believe Wisconsin) don't have the requirement at all. Some of my professors have told me they believe the language requirement is on its way out.

 

So, are there language requirements at the programs you are applying to, how do you feel about that, and do you think the language requirements are on the way out or here to stay in our field?

[bar_scene_gambler]

Well, I'm applying to Emory, and their language requirement is pretty intimidating. Personally, I'm glad that language requirements exist though. I did five years of Mandarin and that, in and of itself, has been a rewarding experience. Also, I'm currently taking German courses and working with a faculty member in the Modern Languages department to get to a basic reading comprehension before I leave, and even the barest knowledge in the German language has proved invaluable in terms of understanding Heidegger, Wittgenstein, etc. (assuming you're using bi-lingual copies or the translators make you aware of the translation issues). So I hope language requirements aren't on their way out.

[philstudent1991]

I agree that with regard to studying foreign texts like Heidegger, knowing German is probably necessary for doctoral quality contributions. But for someone working in purely contemporary analytical issues, it seems like language requirements could just be a big distraction from their work. Learning a language isn't a small commitment.

[catwoman15]

I'm at a program where I had to learn two languages from the standard philosophical array. It was brutal. The most frustrating thing is that if I were in a situation to need to read another language, the first thing I would do would be to use google translate. However, you can't do that on a language exam because it's cheating.

 

In this sense, the language requirement doesn't seem to have caught up to modern technology. Maybe 20 years ago, if you wanted something translated you had to do it yourself. Such is no longer the case, but we still test people like it is.

[bar_scene_gambler]

Why would you use google translate if you'd properly learned the language yourself? Someone with a practical working knowledge of a language would be much better at translating than google translate (I know because google translate's Mandarin-English is only reliable in some situations). Google translate, while probably one of the best translators available, is still not even remotely competitive with a working knowledge of the language itself.

[catwoman15]

That is totally true. I have a working knowledge of one of my languages. The other is rough for me though--I have a translating ability, but it would be far faster to translate once with google translate, then tidy it up myself. 

 

But the point I'm making is that it's a requirement from a time past, when translation had to be done by hand with a dictionary. Most people won't become translators (some will, and for them, it's a really great skill). If you aren't planning on becoming a translator, then simply testing as reading competent in a language is like getting certified to do something that you won't ever really do.

[Cottagecheeseman]

This is where analytic philosophy wins, all I need to learn is formal logic

[sacklunch]

FWIW a Duke DGS told me they were recently considering allowing grad students use google translate as part of language exams. I think it got shot down in the end, but I imagine eventually schools may move toward this trend (as the translation tools improve). Honestly, I'm amazed you guys don't have to do substantial work in German and French, and even in Greek/Latin. Perhaps philosophy has changed, eh? Just seems odd since many of the greats were both philosophers and philologists. At the very least, I'm not sure how one could study someone like Heidegger at the graduate level and not be reading him in the original (and this becomes further problematic since he uses a lot of Greco-Latin philology himself). 

Edited January 2, 2014 by furtivemode

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

This is where analytic philosophy wins, all I need to learn is formal logic

 

I was actually going to make a post about that until I decided against it... but I suppose I'll give it a shot. So, maybe I'm just ignorant of the other branches of analytic philosophy, but knowing foreign languages in logic is actually pretty useful. There is, or at least there was, a solid production of logic done in German as well as in Russian in journals which won't ever see the light of day in translation because there just isn't any large scale demand. Heck, there are even some fairly significant German articles that still haven't ever been translated.

 

Why would you use google translate if you'd properly learned the language yourself? Someone with a practical working knowledge of a language would be much better at translating than google translate (I know because google translate's Mandarin-English is only reliable in some situations). Google translate, while probably one of the best translators available, is still not even remotely competitive with a working knowledge of the language itself.

 

 

I agree, I think language ability is something important one should learn.

 

But the point I'm making is that it's a requirement from a time past, when translation had to be done by hand with a dictionary. Most people won't become translators (some will, and for them, it's a really great skill). If you aren't planning on becoming a translator, then simply testing as reading competent in a language is like getting certified to do something that you won't ever really do

In this sense, the language requirement doesn't seem to have caught up to modern technology. Maybe 20 years ago, if you wanted something translated you had to do it yourself. Such is no longer the case, but we still test people like it is.

 

I really gotta disagree. I have loads of professors who spend a good part of their time translating/reading works in foreign languages, on both sides of the analytic and continental divide. It's an important thing to be able to do and to be able to do well to such an extent that sitting at a computer using Google Translate to help you would just slow you down. I also think humanistically, it's an important skill to cultivate.

[catwoman15]

I feel like I'm being really misunderstood here. It is a good skill to have (which I never denied) what I denied is the necessity for everyone to learn to read and translate two languages.

 

Most of us will (if we can even get jobs) teach undergrads nearly all of the time. Many of us do not need a foreign language to conduct our research (there's ONE notable person in my field who consistently publishes in a language other than english. These articles are translated nearly immediately by someone who is fluent, or by the author themselves.). It is possible that the months I spent acquiring a paltry ability to translate this third language was 'enriching'? Yes. Absolutely. 

 

Would that time have been better spent writing a dissertation and polishing stuff for publication? For me, yes.

 

None of this is to imply that language learning and translation are unimportant or not to be valued. There are loads of valuable stuff that I won't ever do, or ever need to do, even within philosophy.

Edited January 2, 2014 by catwoman15

[bar_scene_gambler]

I feel like I'm being really misunderstood here. It is a good skill to have (which I never denied) what I denied is the necessity for everyone to learn to read and translate two languages.

 

Most of us will (if we can even get jobs) teach undergrads nearly all of the time. Many of us do not need a foreign language to conduct our research (there's ONE notable person in my field who consistently publishes in a language other than english. These articles are translated nearly immediately by someone who is fluent, or by the author themselves.). It is possible that the months I spent acquiring a paltry ability to translate this third language was 'enriching'? Yes. Absolutely. 

 

Would that time have been better spent writing a dissertation and polishing stuff for publication? For me, yes.

 

None of this is to imply that language learning and translation are unimportant or not to be valued. There are loads of valuable stuff that I won't ever do, or ever need to do, even within philosophy.

You're right. You're being misunderstood. At any rate, I think how much you need a language depends on the type of research you're doing in philosophy. Many of the people I'm looking to work with in the programs I'm applying to publish in languages other than English, and the type of research I'm looking to do (mainly German post-Kantian stuff and phenomenology) almost requires a fluency in German. But if you're doing, say, philosophy of science or logic, you probably don't need another language. I'm not sure what kind of work you're doing catwoman, so you're probably right about the type of work you're doing. 

[tomjonesy517]

Personally, I know Spanish fluently, good German, intermediate Italian and some French, Ancient Greek, and Arabic (I love me some languages ). Instead of seeing languages as a "research" thing, you should also consider how many fellowships and opportunities can open up for you when you have even an intermediate language ability. I'm thinking especially of opportunities in Germany and France, but also Italy to a lesser extent. You're generally casting a bigger net. Of course, if you're going to be a professor at a foreign university, you have to know the language rather fluently. But there are some opportunities to teach in English, more than ever actually.

[Table]

 Learning a language isn't a small commitment.

 

You don't really need to "learn a language", though, in that for most requirements you don't need to be a proficient speaker or listener—you need to learn to translate. Still not a small commitment, of course, but significantly less. 

The language requirement has basically disappeared from the physical sciences, hasn't it? I would guess analytic philosophy will go the same way for the same reasons. 

A larger amount of continental work is still being produced in other languages, though, isn't it?

[bar_scene_gambler]

A larger amount of continental work is still being produced in other languages, though, isn't it?

Absolutely. A lot of work in continental philosophy is still being produced in other languages, partially, I think, because continental philosophy is still dominant in Europe (excluding the UK) and partially because a lot of work is done in French and German philosophy (Post-Structuralism, Phenomenology, etc.).

[comicline865]

It used to be that any PhD program worth its salt in the humanities would require two languages (typically French & German), even, e.g., American history programs. If this is not the case anymore, then it's sad to hear. In some of the more philologically oriented disciplines (classics, e.g.), 4-5 languages are still required (Latin, Greek, French, German, Italian typically).

 

I always am a bit taken aback when I hear somebody "works on Derrida" but has no French.

 

 

From Table:

 

 

You don't really need to "learn a language", though, in that for most requirements you don't need to be a proficient speaker or listener—you need to learn to translate. Still not a small commitment, of course, but significantly less.

 

This is also true. In most cases, "languages" means taking a course for "reading comprehension." Depending upon your field, you will either lose that level of proficiency quickly (if you're not making use of it), or improve it till its enough to read at a reasonable pace.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Starbuck

[sacklunch]

I'm still shocked that some programs would only require one modern language. Even if much of one's research involves reading philosophical works in English, I suspect undergirding that work is a long tradition full of Greco-Latin-German philology that would be highly beneficial for one's own research. Understanding where modern scholarship comes from, IMO, is essential to any research in the humanities. What's more bizarre is I figured philosophy programs would be more 'circumspect' about such issues. Meh.

Edited January 3, 2014 by furtivemode

[bar_scene_gambler]

I'm still shocked that some programs would only require one modern language. Even if much of one's research involves reading philosophical works in English, I suspect undergirding that work is a long tradition full of Greco-Latin-German philology that would be highly beneficial for one's own research. Understanding where modern scholarship comes from, IMO, is essential to any research in the humanities. What's more bizarre is I figured philosophy programs would be more 'circumspect' about such issues. Meh.

Programs concerning the history of philosophy are going to be more circumspect about such issues, but most programs aren't dedicated to the history of philosophy.

[MattDest]

A previous advisor of mine, who is from another country and knows several different languages, told me that learning another language for philosophy-related purposes was essentially a waste of time unless you were interested in history of philosophy or linguistics. His reasoning was as follows: (1) most of the important modern philosophy is done in English, or immediately translated to English, (2) the trend indicated in (1) is only increasing - English is becoming the dominant language of philosophy even in non-English speaking countries and (3) learning a language well enough for it to actually impact your own understanding of an original work is usually not covered by mere reading comprehension (translators usually have a much better grasp than someone who meets a language requirement). 

 

I've taken a few semesters of German and was pretty competent in it , but when I read the original work of German philosophers, it gave me no additional insight that a good translation failed to convey. For my own present research interests, learning a language would be time spent that I could better familiarize myself with other, relevant disciplines such as cognitive science, neuroscience, biology, etc. If a university required me to pass a reading comprehension test, I would be very wary of attending there given that it would likely hinder other competencies which were more important to develop.

[marXian]

I'm not in a philosophy department, but many departments at my university, including philosophy and my own (religious studies), are moving to an "as needed" model where students decide in conjunction with advisers and sometimes the DGS what languages the student should be competent in. There are students in my department studying American religions who won't have to do any language at all, and that seems right. I do theology and philosophy of religion in early 20th century Germany, so I'm doing German and French. The latter isn't going to have a ton of relevance in my work right, but for my field, having two languages just looks better. With regard to German, however, I've needed more than just reading competency. I think most people who are doing work on German figures attempt to spend an academic year in Germany at some point during their PhD to work with scholars there, which requires more than simply being able to read and translate with a dictionary. It seems like most folks posting here are doing analytic philosophy, and it may be in that particular discipline, foreign languages aren't necessary. But from what I've experienced thus far in working with faculty in my department, philosophy, and German, I think if one were studying, say, Kant, fluency in German--not just reading proficiency--would be essential for writing a first rate dissertation. Point is, it's kind of tough to talk about whether or not the language requirement as a whole is antiquated since some people are just going to have to learn one or more languages regardless of the availability of English translations.

[TakeMyCoffeeBlack]

I've taken a few semesters of German and was pretty competent in it , but when I read the original work of German philosophers, it gave me no additional insight that a good translation failed to convey.

 

Full disclosure: I'm not a philosopher (but I enjoy reading what you all have to say - you have the most interesting trolls!)

 

However, I took two philosophy courses in German recently, and having access both to English and German versions of the text proved invaluable. Even the best English translations cannot provide, without extensive footnotes, explanations about the specific uses of words in the original language. When we read Hannah Arendt, for example, we spent a lot of time considering the critiques of Arendt in the English speaking world (and German speaking) against her diction. That is, although her English translations may have used the appropriate English word, the English word's roots and history (i.e. etymology) does not always carry the same connotations as that of the German, complicating issues at a very deep level (especially for Arendt). 

 

Or, a bit simpler, I'm reading War and Peace right now, and the edition I'm using has extensive endnotes, almost all of which elaborate on Russian or French words used in the original text that don't translate perfectly - which could be avoided if I read Russian. Were I a scholar of Tolstoy and War and Peace, I'd be rather mediocre if I had to rely on other scholars' footnotes to understand the variations.

 

It may be worth considering, too, that there's evidence to suggest that learning another language (or more) improves the cognitive capabilities of the mind. I'd imagine that's as important to philosophers as it is to political scientists.

 

...

 

And what about untranslated letters, essays, or lesser writings of prominent philosophers (when discovered or made available by kin)? Without that language, you're almost certainly not going to be the scholar invited to analyze the collection.

[MattDest]

Full disclosure: I'm not a philosopher (but I enjoy reading what you all have to say - you have the most interesting trolls!)

 

However, I took two philosophy courses in German recently, and having access both to English and German versions of the text proved invaluable. Even the best English translations cannot provide, without extensive footnotes, explanations about the specific uses of words in the original language. When we read Hannah Arendt, for example, we spent a lot of time considering the critiques of Arendt in the English speaking world (and German speaking) against her diction. That is, although her English translations may have used the appropriate English word, the English word's roots and history (i.e. etymology) does not always carry the same connotations as that of the German, complicating issues at a very deep level (especially for Arendt). 

 

Or, a bit simpler, I'm reading War and Peace right now, and the edition I'm using has extensive endnotes, almost all of which elaborate on Russian or French words used in the original text that don't translate perfectly - which could be avoided if I read Russian. Were I a scholar of Tolstoy and War and Peace, I'd be rather mediocre if I had to rely on other scholars' footnotes to understand the variations.

 

It may be worth considering, too, that there's evidence to suggest that learning another language (or more) improves the cognitive capabilities of the mind. I'd imagine that's as important to philosophers as it is to political scientists.

 

...

 

And what about untranslated letters, essays, or lesser writings of prominent philosophers (when discovered or made available by kin)? Without that language, you're almost certainly not going to be the scholar invited to analyze the collection.

 

These are all great points. It may be the case for others that an intermediate knowledge of German has helped them (bsg says as much earlier), but for me it just didn't add much. 

 

Also, I don't doubt that learning another language is a good thing to do in general, and enriching in many different ways, but I just don't think it should be a requirement of PhD programs in philosophy (or, at least for certain interests). 

[Table]

I've taken a few semesters of German and was pretty competent in it , but when I read the original work of German philosophers, it gave me no additional insight that a good translation failed to convey. For my own present research interests, learning a language would be time spent that I could better familiarize myself with other, relevant disciplines such as cognitive science, neuroscience, biology, etc. If a university required me to pass a reading comprehension test, I would be very wary of attending there given that it would likely hinder other competencies which were more important to develop.

 

I agree with this. Like many have said, competency in second (and third) language can be a valuable research tool. But we have limited time. I don't see any reason to think it's the most valuable research tool for everyone. If you're not working with anything originally written in a different language, I think your time would likely be better spent elsewhere.

[TakeMyCoffeeBlack]

I guess we can't forget either that "competency" as defined by programs is not always proficiency at a level that will provide you incredible insight that you otherwise wouldn't have. There's a difference between being able to work through foreign language texts and being fluent in and familiar with the intricacies of another language. For certain courses of studies, one or the other may be necessary, in others maybe neither. Again, I'm not a philosopher, but that's certainly the case in political science. 

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

Philosophers in the past were able to read and write Greek, Latin, German, and then some without any complaints about how they could have better spent their time.

[comicline865]

I think that requirements for proficiency in German, French, sometimes even Latin, are, in the modern context, less about reading "primary texts"--for which, as others have noted, excellent translations are typically available--and more about reading major scholarly publications. It is still the case that seminal publications on philosophers from Aristotle and Plato to the moderns remain untranslated in the original German, French, or what have you.

 

I can't imagine that such reading requirements were more than a formality in the 19th and 18th centuries, when stipulations for multilingualism would have probably been superfluous for anybody seeking any sort of advanced degree.

 

If it's the case for some disciplines, or sub-disciplines, that language requirements are no longer necessary (either because the research is primarily in English-speaking countries or because there is enough demand that anything worthwhile is instantly translated), then I'm sure the language requirements will, for those specific disciplines, eventually be dropped. But the academic machine turns verrrryyyyy slowlllyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, so I would expect a significant lag time before language requirements totally disappear--and for some studies (classics, etc., where major publications are routinely in other languages), I'm sure they never will.

 

I have to admit, however, that I am a bit suspicious of any disciplines for which there is not a sufficient international dialogue for modern languages to be germane. Even if it's all translated instantly and accurately--wouldn't you still want not only to tag along, but also to actively engage and respond? More generally, one might argue that without knowledge of the original language of a text, one is always moving within another's interpretation (supposing translation always includes a bit of interpretation).

Edited January 5, 2014 by Starbuck