Thoughts on language requirements

[Rollontheground]

I don't think languages should be required, but people would ideally feel compelled to learn them to do work in their field. And I'd argue that even the analyticians could learn something from seeing how other languages "think." (As a side note, check out Kierkegaard's reflections on the Aorist mood in Greek in his unpublished novella Johannes Climasicus, if you ever come across it in a used bookstore or anything.)

 

For example, I think Greek is necessary to pick up on certain un-translatable things in ancient philosophy. E.g., in the Apology, Socrates is charged with "not believing the gods in whom the city believes." But that translation kind of sucks. The word for belief here, NOMIZO, is related to the word for law, NOMOS. Literally, something like "not lawing the gods who the city laws" — which perhaps has a connotation of Esteeming, or pushing it, OBEYING. And Even the translational gods make poor choices.  

 

It's important to know this stuff. Should it be required? I don't think so. But hopefully we'd all learn two or three (assuming we don't work solely on English speaking philosophers).

Edited January 5, 2014 by Rollontheground

[catwoman15]

There are two thing, also, that I think it's important to mention.

 

1) You have severely limited time in graduate school. During this time you have a ton of commitments that are new and a bunch of old skills that are not good enough that you need to hone. For some people it will be a language. But, you also have the weight of 400 pages of reading a week, writing assignments, teaching, grading, writing conference papers, doing service work, and trying to publish. While the idea of learning multiple languages is great, you still have to fit that time in there somewhere when you're already strapped for time, and on a clock with funding.

 

2) You don't actually have to learn a language to pass a language requirement. A few people have already said it. Generally, you take a one semester course either in translation or in reading, then take an exam where you translate a certain amount of text. This doesn't actually require a huge amount of language skills. Sure, you need to understand the grammar and some basic and philosophy specific terminology and vocabulary, but it doesn't require actually learning enough language skills to be terribly helpful (even if you do research in the works of someone writing in another language, this level of skill is generally not all that helpful).

 

Ideally, we would have as much funding as we need in graduate school to spend time getting all the skills and publishing all the work that we have. This just isn't a reality though. So, it makes sense to focus on those things that will end in a job. For a Kant scholar, one of those things will be learning German. For most of us, though, that thing is publishing.

[maxhgns]

We have both a language (1 @ advanced competency, or 2 @ medium) and a logic (formerly everything required to prove Incompleteness I and II, now just FOL + soundness and completeness) requirement. Generally speaking, I think both are extremely valuable. Unfortunately, as I progress through my PhD, I'm increasingly of the opinion that they're huge time sinks for most of us, and come without much reward. Allow me to clarify.

 

Ours is a (genuinely) pluralist department. As such, it's faced with something of an identity crisis when training new PhDs: they want to instill the same values they have. Their ideal scholar is one who's well-versed in history, contemporary continental, and contemporary analytic. Someone with the skills to read and contribute (at least as a dissertation reader) in all three areas. Indeed, some of our best faculty are like that, and they're really, really impressive. So that strikes me as a desirable model. On the other hand, there's the fact that there's not really enough time to train someone to become like that unless they come in with strong language and logic skills. Invariably, what ends up happening is that the analytic-y students find the language requirement to be something of a waste of time (which it is, mostly), while the historians and continentalists tend to find the logic a waste of their time (which it was, mostly, before it got weakened). The former would be better served doing more (advanced) logic, and the latter by spending that time on a (or another) research language. To compound the problem, the department and university do not really offer adequate financial support to undertake the apprenticeship of a new language from scratch (the deparment of modern languages is singularly uncooperative on this front).

 

I do think that every philosopher should have a good grasp of logic (and more than just basic FOL, IMO). And I think it's useful for a professional academic to know another language. But I'm not convinced that our current setup works, and achieves anything more than wasting everyone's time and causing undue anxiety. I'm sure other places have it figured out better than we do, however. A few departments (e.g. Madison, I think) actually require that their PhDs "minor" in another subject. That strikes me as a very interesting and useful option.

[Rollontheground]

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:

 

 

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.

 

I don't know if this is entirely true, but a friend of mine who is getting her Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible told me that she *had* to learn Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Ugaritic, Akkadian, French, and German; another friend in Hebrew Bible told me something similar. I wonder if the Biblical lit. people are even more language savvy than the classicists?

[Cottagecheeseman]

I don't know if this is entirely true, but a friend of mine who is getting her Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible told me that she *had* to learn Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Ugaritic, Akkadian, French, and German; another friend in Hebrew Bible told me something similar. I wonder if the Biblical lit. people are even more language savvy than the classicists?

My friend interested in early Christianity/Paul has to learn Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic, and German (because tons of religious research is done in German apparently) But he only needs reading level in these, so its not a HUGE deal.

[Canis]

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.

In that past all PhDs were expected to know Latin, Greek, and German/French. But in that past only the most privileged could be formal scholars and they were taught those languages from childhood.

[sacklunch]

I ride Hebrew Bible and early reception/transmission history - a subfield of ancient history that, perhaps, has the most heavy language requirements - and it is indeed rigorous. This is exactly why I am working on my second masters right now (4 years of coursework before starting a PhD, NOT in any way theological). 

 

As for our requirements not being a 'HUGE' deal....go ahead and try it out and see how easy it is! But all bullshit aside, yes, on the one hand some of the languages are 'easier' to master because we are 'only' reading them (the great majority, in fact), but on the other hand we cannot simply show up to a language school or immersion program and learn them quickly. You can expect to study them (i.e. sitting down and reading, ad nauseam) for 3-4 years before you can claim anywhere near 'advanced' status. You figure in my subfield, for example, doing 3-4 years (min.) of Greek (classical, koine, patristic), Hebrew (biblical, rabbinic), Aramaic/Syriac, Latin (classical, patristic) as the 'expected' for ancient languages (and usually in my field you might pick up something like Coptic or for me, classical Armenian), plus the mandatory requirement of German and French.....it starts to become a huge commitment.

 

As for the 'old dudes in the past learned it at a young age.' So what? That doesn't stop religious studies and classics from requiring us to learn them all. This is precisely why we (and I include other humanities folks in this, too) almost always have to do a masters (or two) before starting a PhD, along with summer programs (for example I was at Middlebury last summer improving my German).

 

I'm not saying philosophy programs should require you to learn all these languages. That would be absurd. But, if you are studying anything at all in depth in translation, then your research will be heavily stunted. Even more, as I said earlier, being able to access the history of scholarship that undergirds your research is infinitely valuable. Such scholarship undoubtedly is riddled with Greco-Latin philologists-philosophers.

 

cheers 

[philstudent1991]

A bit off topic, but I can't figure out if Arizona, UCLA and UCSD have language requirements and if so to what degree. Any applicants to these schools happen to know?

[Rollontheground]

I ride Hebrew Bible and early reception/transmission history - a subfield of ancient history that, perhaps, has the most heavy language requirements - and it is indeed rigorous. This is exactly why I am working on my second masters right now (4 years of coursework before starting a PhD, NOT in any way theological). 

 

As for our requirements not being a 'HUGE' deal....go ahead and try it out and see how easy it is! But all bullshit aside, yes, on the one hand some of the languages are 'easier' to master because we are 'only' reading them (the great majority, in fact), but on the other hand we cannot simply show up to a language school or immersion program and learn them quickly. You can expect to study them (i.e. sitting down and reading, ad nauseam) for 3-4 years before you can claim anywhere near 'advanced' status. You figure in my subfield, for example, doing 3-4 years (min.) of Greek (classical, koine, patristic), Hebrew (biblical, rabbinic), Aramaic/Syriac, Latin (classical, patristic) as the 'expected' for ancient languages (and usually in my field you might pick up something like Coptic or for me, classical Armenian), plus the mandatory requirement of German and French.....it starts to become a huge commitment.

 

As for the 'old dudes in the past learned it at a young age.' So what? That doesn't stop religious studies and classics from requiring us to learn them all. This is precisely why we (and I include other humanities folks in this, too) almost always have to do a masters (or two) before starting a PhD, along with summer programs (for example I was at Middlebury last summer improving my German).

 

I'm not saying philosophy programs should require you to learn all these languages. That would be absurd. But, if you are studying anything at all in depth in translation, then your research will be heavily stunted. Even more, as I said earlier, being able to access the history of scholarship that undergirds your research is infinitely valuable. Such scholarship undoubtedly is riddled with Greco-Latin philologists-philosophers.

 

cheers 

 

 

Furtive, is it a HUGE deal? This stuff comes naturally to me, but then again I don't HAVE to study languages. I assume the pressure would contribute to the difficulty. I assume you love learning new languages though; it's not just a means to an end, right?

 

I'm 3/4 through an M.A. in Church History, applying to Ph.D.s in Ancient (and hopefully getting into something that'll let me study Medieval's appropriation of Ancient). I only know Koine Greek, but well enough to be able to check out Plato and see if something screwy is going on; I'm learning Hebrew, and I can consult articles in French slowly. I am absolutely embarrassed that I don't know Latin, however, or German for that matter (especially given my interest in Nietzsche). I'm pretty good at learning languages though, and I have no doubt that when I'm done with my Ph.D. (assuming I get in somewhere) I'll be competent in German, French, and Hebrew, and pretty good at Greek and Latin. Thus, for someone with my interests, I think Greek, Latin, Hebrew, French and German are almost necessary to contribute to scholarship in my field. (So much Church History stuff is in French and German that these are necessary if one is to be original, for without them one cannot even see what French and German scholars are saying, thus precluding originality. And I say people with focuses in Medieval should learn Hebrew because, at some point or another, you're going to be reading someone's commentary on something in the Old Testament, and if you can't consult the Hebrew it might look bad. )

 

I still don't think these things should be required though; rather, people should be shamed into learning them. I think it's absurd that someone working on Hume and Berkley should need to know some fancy language. Let people learn of their own accord; it will make the whole language learning experience more pleasurable for all involved.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Rollontheground

[sacklunch]

I'm afraid shame isn't enough. Look at the students at top PhD programs in EC or reception history. Many of them majored in classics and still more of them have 4 (some 5) years of masters work (many MDiv + ThM/STM). I'm not saying you can't get into a good program without a heavy amount of ancient/modern languages. I'm just saying it's difficult to do so. These things depend greatly from school to school. When I was studying at BC, for example, I did not know one single PhD student in a bible-oriented field that didn't have two masters. There is simply too much competition unless you went to a top 20 for undergrad and still you will find most of the folks that went to an ivy for college ended up doing a masters before beginning their doctoral work! I am merely reporting my own experience, studying at schools with dozens of doctoral students who all, more or less, followed this path. 

 

Also, I don't think any program requires a language simply because it is 'fancy.'  Even if one were studying Hume I suspect having requirements mandating German and French (at the very least) would be essential, and I might argue that having reading comp. in an ancient language is equally so. Again, it isn't simply about accessing Hume's work, but about understanding the broader philosophical world from which he drew, and that, in many cases, requires competency in the classics.

 

BTW, yes, it is HUGE. For one to feel comfortable reading any language, ancient or modern, requires years of study. There is simply no way one can read through a German article comfortably and with any measure of speed having completed only one semester of a German reading course. On the other hand, I may be slower at learning languages than others (I mean that earnestly)!

Edited January 6, 2014 by furtivemode

[marXian]

I might be misreading some of you on this thread, so if I am, let me know. Some of what I'm saying here has been touched upon in other posts (e.g. Takemycoffeeblack, Starbuck, furtivemode, and others) so sorry for being a little repetitive. 

 

It seems the disconnect here is that many seem to be making a more or less general claim that languages simply aren't useful anymore, are great for personal enrichment, but too time consuming for those pursuing a PhD given everything else that has to be done. I do agree that not everyone in every humanities field should have to learn foreign languages; and as I mentioned before, some universities are moving toward a languages-as-needed model like some of you are suggesting. In those cases, learning a foreign language might be deemed to be a huge time sink, and simply not worth it--if someone is studying figures who only write in English or a subject in which it doesn't make sense to know more than English.

 

However, I think it's important to emphasize what furtivemode is saying here and add that it extends beyond philological disciplines like his. I don't think one can become an expert in the work of a foreign figure without not only a basic reading competency (i.e. passing a reading exam) but actual fluency in the language. It's not really a matter of whether or not you think reading in the original language adds to your understanding of a text or it being a good skill for personal enrichment or thinking differently, etc. It's also not just a matter of meeting a minimum requirement (a reading exam.)

 

Obviously, I can only speak from my experience, so that's what I'm offering here. I've not encountered a single professor either at Northwestern or UChicago who works on a German figure (or figures) who has thought that German fluency wasn't absolutely necessary for that kind of work (German, philosophy, and RS professors at NU, theology at UofC div school.) My department (RS at Northwestern) no longer has an official language requirement (something instituted just last year), but I'm still "required" to be fluent in German. It's just the nature of my discipline and what I'm studying. I've passed the UChicago German proficiency exam, but I'm not done. I need to go to Germany this summer just to work on language, and before that I have to continue to work on my own. For what it's worth, I also don't know any philosophy students at NU working on either French or German figures who aren't already fluent in the necessary languages or are working on it currently. They're in the same boat I am. There are just too many things that depend on fluency, if it's relevant to your field (e.g. funding opportunities abroad almost always require reading and speaking ability in the language of the country you want to go to.)

 

To put it as succinctly as possible, if you're planning on studying non-English language things, it's a huge deal; plan on being as competent as necessary in the language or languages that are going to be the most relevant given what is currently acceptable in your field.

Edited January 6, 2014 by marXian

[alethicethic]

There seem to be cognitive benefits to language learning that are independent of one's ability to communicate fluently in that language. Perhaps that's not a strong enough consideration to warrant a requirement, but it's something that has yet to be mentioned in the thread, at least, so I thought I'd throw it out there. 

 

In my own case, speaking several languages enables me to think in different ways about certain concepts. So, for instance, in one language one concept might have one range of meaning and related metaphors, and in another language there might be some overlap, but then also a quite different range of extended meanings. It's quite interesting to see where they overlap and where they diverge, and it enriches my ability to make new conceptual connections.

 

Reading newspapers in a foreign language provides me with access to more information, as well as a richer and more nuanced understanding of current events. This is particularly salient for me, because I study moral and political philosophy, so I can more easily call up a range of possibilities of human values and justificatory reasons, and so on. This is beneficial, even though I work in English.

 

Finally, learning a language is a deeply humbling experience, particularly if one travels elsewhere to participate in an immersion program. It's one of the most difficult things that I've ever done. Just the experience of being a language learner has shaped my character in positive ways, and provided me with additional motivation to be a compassionate and patient teacher.

 

I would sooner see departments offer more funding and support for language study, than to do away with the language requirement altogether.

[TakeMyCoffeeBlack]

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.

 

 

There seem to be cognitive benefits to language learning that are independent of one's ability to communicate fluently in that language. Perhaps that's not a strong enough consideration to warrant a requirement, but it's something that has yet to be mentioned in the thread, at least, so I thought I'd throw it out there. 

 

Well, the non philosopher mentioned it, but worth mentioning a hundred more times, no?

Edited January 12, 2014 by TakeMyCoffeeBlack

[MattDest]

Well, the non philosopher mentioned it, but worth mentioning a hundred more times, no?

Is your Santa Claus section where you will be attending? Haha, I can't figure it out. 

[alethicethic]

Well, the non philosopher mentioned it, but worth mentioning a hundred more times, no?

 

Eep, my bad. Sorry, I missed that sentence. 

[TakeMyCoffeeBlack]

Is your Santa Claus section where you will be attending? Haha, I can't figure it out. 

 

Eh, it was Christmas time when I made the signature. Should probably change it now... Santa Claus would probably have been more appropriate as a substitute for accepted, no?

[Statianus]

In very practical ways, foreign languages are needed for graduate research. When you are collating a preliminary bibliography, you need to know be able to decide whether foreign language works are relevant to your project. You need to be able to read the title or abstract. You do not want to be google translating every second citation in a recent publication to find out whether it is relevant to your project or struggling to decipher one hundred abstracts. 

 

English might be the main academic language, but there continues to be work done in European languages. While seminal works in one area might be translated, most recent publications will not have an English translation to follow. On this point, however, maybe it is different in philosophy. My background is classical philology and there is an expectation that a PhD thesis will show an understanding of all relevant secondary literature, including non-Anglophone literature. 

 

Finally, a few people have mentioned using google translate. I wish more of the philosophers tackled this ... philosophically. Does a translation ever accurately reproduce the original? I guess in terms of extracting raw propositional content, a translator (or even google translate) might be effective. But in translation, you also lose a lot of other features of the text (the sound, syntax, tone, etc). You might lose puns or irony, which a translation does not necessarily render. As a classical philologist I often find this is a problem when I observe philosophers engage with Plato, where in the original text, there's a lot of punning, plays on sound, highly ornately organised sentences, and often irony. 

[dfindley]

philosophy and language are two different things. if you have a reliably well translated text, with explanations when necessary, then it isn't necessary to study the mother tongue of that philosopher.

if you want to spend your time squabbling over trivial nuances in diction or made up words, then you're a dumbass .

[dfindley]

For example, I think Greek is necessary to pick up on certain un-translatable things in ancient philosophy. E.g., in the Apology, Socrates is charged with "not believing the gods in whom the city believes." But that translation kind of sucks. The word for belief here, NOMIZO, is related to the word for law, NOMOS. Literally, something like "not lawing the gods who the city laws" — which perhaps has a connotation of Esteeming, or pushing it, OBEYING. And Even the translational gods make poor choices.

.

case in point.

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

case in point.

 

I'm not at all familiar with the particulars of Ancient Greek philosophy, but I believe there are concrete translation concerns over the fact that Greek does not have definite/indefinite articles, and that there are actual issues on specifics lines in Aristotle and Parmenidies (I'm more familiar with Parmenides since my school focused on the pre-socratics), where the interpretatation depends on whether or not an article should be there or not. This isn't something you'll be able to determine, or even be aware of as an issue, if you're reading a translation. I should also say I don't understand your dismisal of Rollontheground's example.

 

You need to be familiar with Greek, and not just on a surface level, but know the various ways in which a Greek person might try to articulate the definite/indefinite distinction without having specific terms for it.

 

Which is another point. If you're reading something in translation, you might not even be aware of there being an issue, because the translation glides over some nuance, mistranslates, or just doesn't translate something.

Edited January 12, 2014 by SelfHatingPhilosopher

[sacklunch]

^This is one of many issues when one reads classical Greek in translation. Greek, more so than German, is inflected and thus is much more pointed in its syntactical distinctions: every clause hangs on another. This creates certain advantages, of course, in its precision, while in other non-inflected languages (e.g. Hebrew), meanings become less 'clear', though on the other hand, this allows (in some instances) for a richer, more broad interpretation. Again, in translation, all of this is lost. I don't care how good one's translation is, when doing graduate research one needs to be able to read their primary sources with a fair level of speed, while of course maintaining the ability to 'hold it all together' (esp. in the case of classical Greek; a problem that I will continually struggle, btw!).

[Ryura]

In very practical ways, foreign languages are needed for graduate research. When you are collating a preliminary bibliography, you need to know be able to decide whether foreign language works are relevant to your project. You need to be able to read the title or abstract. You do not want to be google translating every second citation in a recent publication to find out whether it is relevant to your project or struggling to decipher one hundred abstracts. 

 

English might be the main academic language, but there continues to be work done in European languages. While seminal works in one area might be translated, most recent publications will not have an English translation to follow. On this point, however, maybe it is different in philosophy. My background is classical philology and there is an expectation that a PhD thesis will show an understanding of all relevant secondary literature, including non-Anglophone literature. 

 

Finally, a few people have mentioned using google translate. I wish more of the philosophers tackled this ... philosophically. Does a translation ever accurately reproduce the original? I guess in terms of extracting raw propositional content, a translator (or even google translate) might be effective. But in translation, you also lose a lot of other features of the text (the sound, syntax, tone, etc). You might lose puns or irony, which a translation does not necessarily render. As a classical philologist I often find this is a problem when I observe philosophers engage with Plato, where in the original text, there's a lot of punning, plays on sound, highly ornately organised sentences, and often irony. 

1. There seem to be many areas of anglophone philosophy today that have very little work being done on them in foreign languages. On a whole, the type of philosophy done in the English-speaking world differs from, say, continental Europe's philosophy. That's why language learning appears to be irrelevant for English-speaking philosophers today.

2. There actually is quite a bit of philosophical literature on the problems of translation in philosophy. I see these issues discussed in forewords by translated authors all the time. Gadamer has written some on translation as well.

[Statianus]

1. There seem to be many areas of anglophone philosophy today that have very little work being done on them in foreign languages. On a whole, the type of philosophy done in the English-speaking world differs from, say, continental Europe's philosophy. That's why language learning appears to be irrelevant for English-speaking philosophers today.

2. There actually is quite a bit of philosophical literature on the problems of translation in philosophy. I see these issues discussed in forewords by translated authors all the time. Gadamer has written some on translation as well.

In regard to 1, I can't comment on what work is being in what languages in what fields. I was just addressing the point about machine translations. In regard to point 2, you misunderstand me. I meant in this particular thread. I understand that a lot of work is being in the philosophy of translation. Hence, my comment. 

[sacklunch]

philosophy and language are two different things. if you have a reliably well translated text, with explanations when necessary, then it isn't necessary to study the mother tongue of that philosopher.

if you want to spend your time squabbling over trivial nuances in diction or made up words, then you're a dumbass .

 

Your comment merely demonstrates that you have not studied a foreign language in any depth. If you had, you would have encountered innumerable instances where the original offers a different nuance than the translation. Translation, especially with older works, is riddled with presumptions that are entirely dependent on one's 'recreating' of the original context of the work. In almost all cases this is not possible. This is even more problematic with older methods of translation, viz. diachronic vs synchronic methods, and leads to defining/understanding words based on simplistic models such as etymology, and so on. 

 

cheers

[Ryura]

In regard to 1, I can't comment on what work is being in what languages in what fields. I was just addressing the point about machine translations. In regard to point 2, you misunderstand me. I meant in this particular thread. I understand that a lot of work is being in the philosophy of translation. Hence, my comment. 

My first point was mostly in response to "While seminal works in one area might be translated, most recent publications will not have an English translation to follow. On this point, however, maybe it is different in philosophy." As far as your second point, fair enough; I assumed you were talking about philosophers in general.