21 •

11. LANGUAGE AS A CONSTRAINT

- Languages, terminologies and mind-sets 23

- Social science terminology; the problems andpossibilities arising from the use of severallanguages 30

- Conceptual gaps and confused distinctions; possibleambiguities in the translation of interrelated conceptsbetween sectors, jargons or languages 33

23.

ro~~

~~~~=~~TI~

~ro~~~ro~~~D

TI~OO~~~~~~~~~~

Introduction

It is healthy to be reminded of thelack of homogeniety in internationaldiscourse. In particular it seemed tobe a useful exercise to assemble tog­ether some data on the world's mainlanguages, terminologies, and What, forwant of a better word, may be calledmind-sets.

languages of the world

Somewhat surprisingly, up to date in­formation on the number of languagesspoken, their interrelationship, and thenumber of speakers of each language isnot easily available (One would havethought that these would be regUlarlyreported in the Unesco Statistical Year­book). The exact number of languagesis not known, mainly because there isdisagreement among linguists overwhat constitutes a ianguage and whatconstitutes a dialect. The figure of 2,700to 3,000 languages is however frequent­Iyencountered.There is also much difficulty in break­ing the languages down into interrelatedgroups. A portion of linguistic debateis concerned with allocating particularlanguages to new parts of the currentlyfavoured classification scheme. Thereare many differences of opinion onsubgroupings. For this reason, it wouldseem, there is a tendency on the partof linguists to avoid presenting com­prehensive listings. Information on thenumber of speakers of each language isequally elusive. The table (on pages222-223) is therefore a compromiseamong a number of different sources (1).It should be considered indicative only.An attempt has been made to includeall languages with over one millionspeakers. One first important conclus­ion is the number of languages spokenby less than one million people (over2,500).The number of speakers of a particularlanguage is frequently a matter ofnational or cultural prestige to thedegree that one questions the objectivityof comparative statistics (2). One reasonfor discrepancy is putting «second lan­guage » speakers together with «firstlanguage» speakers.It is difficult to locate information onthe conceptual restrictions imposed bya particular language, since most stud­ies are word-oriented. Since each lan­guage provides a conceptual frame­work, an understanding of the strengthsand weaknesses of different frameworkscould be extremely enriching for inter­national discourse.

Terminologies

The exercise of collecting data on lan­guages suggested that it might be equal­ly useful to present information onthe variety of terminological systems

currently in use. The argument here isthat each discipline, which is the sub­ject of education, has its own specialvocabulary and conceptual frame­work. Communication between disci­plines is a matter of considerable dif­fiCUlty. There is no profession of inter­disciplinary translators as there is forlanguages - nor is there any inter­disciplinary « Esperanto ».

It seemed useful therefore to see whe­ther any answer could be given to suchquestions as «how many people speaksociology? » However, as with langua­ges, there are those who speak thejargon fluently, others who make useof some of it, and finally there arethose who can understand it but do notspeak it. Clearly this type of informa­tion is very hard to obtain. However,by making a number of assumptions,it is possible to obtain an indicationof how many speakers of each jargonthere might be. While the assumptionsmay be weak, no other course is cur­rently open to us. Readers must jUdgefor themselves from the table (seepage224-225; whether the informationpresented raises useful questions. Aswith the languages, there is a problemof distinguishing between terminolo­gical «languages" and «dialects».Many of the languages jdialects, usedby highly specialized groups could notof course be detected by the methodused here. One can speculate thatthere may be as many as severalthousand.Since a listing of this type has appar­ently not been attempted before, someprocedural notes are in order. Somereaders may prefer to continue at thenext heading and omit the followingparagraphs.

1. A preliminary breakdown and grouping ofdisciplines was obtained from an AbridgedUDC List.

2. It was assumed that the speakers of eachjargon must have received a third level oruniversity education. A useful method of

distinguishing between the degree of fluencywas to base it on the achievements at thislevel; Unesco distinguishes three stages atthe third level.A. Diplomas and certificates lower than the

first degree (generally less than 3 years)• B. Diplomas and certificates equivalent to a

first degree (generally 4-5 years)C. Diplomas and certificates equivalent to a

higher degree (inciuding master's anddoctorates).

It was decided to consider the Cs as fluent,primary users; the As· and Bs togetheras secondary users with a partial knowledge;those enroll ing but not qualifying as havinga li mited understanding of the iargon inquestion.

3. The Unesco Statistical Yearbook gives- number of students reaching fhe above

levels each year, for recent years, forthe majority of countries. (The queslionof the international comparability ofdiplomas is explicitly set aside in pres­enting this information)

- data for the majority of countries, for rec­ent years, on enrollments, students andgraduates broken down by the followingdisciplines: humanities, education, finearts, law, social sciences, natural scien­ces, engineering, medical sciences, agri­CUlture.

4. The Unesco discipline breakdown was notdetailed enough, so a means was reqUIred toobtain data on the achievement with respectto more specialized jargons. The assumptionwas made that data available at a more det­ialed level in the USA could be used as ameans of establishing the relative numberof speakers within any of the Unesco group­ings. This assumption is especially weak inthe case of the highly advanced technologyjargons (e.g. computer design).

5. The Unesco data only indicated the recentgraduates. Up to date estimates of the totalnumber of graduates in each country seemto be unavailable. A means was thereforerequired of establishing a relationship betweenthe number of current graduates and thetotal number of graduates.Again the assumption was made that dataavailable for the USA could be used if acorrection for the relative d~velopment ofthe USA was made. It was assumed that therelative GNPs could be used for thiS pur­pose.The source used for the USA data were;American Scientific Manpower Report 1970.Washington, National Science Foundation;and W.T. Furniss (Ed.) American Univer­sities and Colleges. Washington. AmericanCouncil on Education, 1973, p. 19 andp. 1773-4.The NSF reports on active scientists of whoman estimated 64 % answered a questionnaire.

The second source indIcates how many peoplegraduated since 1930 (an assumed arbitrarycut·oH date).

6. A limited degree of cross-checking was poss­ible by comparing totals for disciplinarygroups obtained by extrapolating from USAto world data, and by extrapolating backUnesco current data from 1970 to 1930 (onthe assumption of 10 % average decreaseper year, indicated in the U.N. World SociatSituation Report for 1970, which was assumedto hold for the whole period).The use of USA data did not cross-checksUfficiently in the case of med ical sciencesand law (not adequately covered in the NSFreport) so the Unesco data only were used.In addition, for medicine, contrary to Unes­co practice, doctorates were treated as type Crather than B.

7. An assumption had to be made about theaverage number of years at each stage in or­der to correct the Unesco enrollment figurestor re-enrollments.

8. The disciplinary breakdowns were differentin the different sources. Adjustments had tobe made for this. For this reason, the tota'sIndicated against some groupings do not al­ways correspond with the real total of theitems Included below. This however contormswith NSF practice, since some items may beallocated to several headings or these maybe an other category.

Comments

There are clearly many defects andweaknesses in the above approach but,at least in the case of primary users,it does provide a systematic presenta­tion of data which could be corrected

by international professional bodies.The primary users are essentially the« professionals" in each jargon areawhereas the secondary users are the« technicians» or «appliers ». Thespecial weakness of the data presentedon the secondary and tertiary levelsis that it does not allow for people whohave acquired the ability to use thejargon, either through practical workexperience (e.g. a lawyer's clerk) orthrough private reading on the massmedia. In addition, an attempt shouldbe made to correct the two lower levelsby data on employees in occupationsusing a particular jargon. The ILO datain the Yearbook of Labour Statisticsis however unfortunately presented byindustrial sector and not by disciplineand does not distinguish between thedifferent grades of employee (profes­sional, technician, operative) (3).However there may be some validityin the assumption that only people whohave been exposed to' a jargon in for­mal education acquire more than alimited understanding of it, whichwould maintain the validity of thedata on the second level of users. An­other weakness, which is difficult tocorrect, is that educational coursestend to spread to cover a variety ofdisciplines, although Unesco data wouldonly cover the major discipline for

which the student registered. Thus,particularly within a major groupinglike the « social sciences », students ofany of the sub-groupings would acquirea «limited understanding» if not theability to make a « partial use », of theterminologies of other sUb-groupings.The data on developing countries(Africa, Latin-America, Asia, exclud­ing Israel, Turkey and Japan) is ofcourse especially SUbject to the reser­ves concerning the equivalence of di­plomas. The graduates from India,Pakistan, Egypt, Brazil and SouthAfrica considerably inflate the devel­oping country figures.

Mind-Sets

In this last section we touch upon areaswhich are much less understood. Theyconcern the pre-Iogical biases or dis­positions which govern an individual's(or a culture'S) preference for particulartypes of information or concepts. Astriking concrete example of one as­pect of this is the American preferencefor grid organization of roads. withsystematic numbering along each road,compared to the Japanese area ftimeconcept whereby buildings are num­bered in date order of their construc­tion in a given area. More obviously,

Figure I Comparison of different methods of communicating concepts

Method

Gesture

Speech

Writing

Image

Matbs

Diagram(exhibitcharts)

Artisticmobiles

Diagram (flowcharts f graphs)

Interactivegraphics(alpbascope)

Psychedelicenvironment

Interactivegraphics(sti'Ucturedimage)

Advantages

direct and to the point; dramatic impact

personalized, subtle, poetic, imageful, analogy-full,adjusted to audience

permanent record; words weigbed and compared incontext; document forms an intelligible whole

provides context in physical terms; involving, higblycomplex, blgb Information content, bigb interrelation­ship

bandies very complex abstractions and relations anda multiplicity of dimensions

structured to make a specific point

complex, new and unpredictable relationships

portray all detectable inter-relationships in precisemanner; panoramic view of system

precise messages; responsive; contents can be orientedto suit user

very· subtle and complex imagery and relationships;pl'ocess oriented; integration of visual and audio; psy­chologically involvinggreater user selectivity and control on content andform of presentatiou; complex abstractions held ondisplay; processes displayed as flows; dynamic; enhan­ced creativity; 2-4 dimensions.

Disadvantages

no abstr~tion possible,

no permanent record, meanings l\nd models shift fromphrase to phrase

meaning of words undefinec· or differ, between d(ICum­ents) definitions become coneretized and langUagedependent; complexity of abstr~tions limited by syumxof language; problem of jargon .

superficial and unstrudured

toss of intuitive appreciation of the coQl:'PB invotv~

impeneG'able without lengthy initlalion;,$l'stem of uptJl.tion heoomes more complex than the concepts deSCl"~;imperso~ud '

over-simplification; exageratl9u. of some Jestures atexpense of others; processes only -dis~ed statically

experience primarily incommunicable

visually complex to the point of imPenetrability; pro­cesses still conveyed staticaUy;. dift'icwt to moctitY

no stt~tnred overview; bounded.by~lige Imlde ofprograD.1; processes conveyedlls a.sequence of isolatedmessltlJ.e5 (or as a game experience)

no scientific content; no signlf'l£ant invariants; exper­ience primarily incommunicabie

highly siructured without the.subtle relationships char!'.acteristic of arts; user still centred «outsidt the struc-ture looking in » •

there is the difference between thosewho wish to read about a topic beforedeciding whether to listen to a verbalpresentation, and those who wish tolisten to the presentation before decid­Ing whether to read the documentation.There seemes to be very little infor­mation on these individual and culturalpreferences. We do not know what rangeof preferences is involved, so it is noteven possible to present indicativedata.As an indication of this range, how­ever, two dimensions are consideredbelow. The first covers a variety offorms of information presentation;the second covers a set of pre-Iogicalbiases. It may be that the intersectionsof these two sets cover a major portionof the range of orientations of interestto international discourse.A tentative list of the variety of formsof information organization and pres­entation would include the following(in no particular order)

A. Mime, gesture, ritual, drama, cere­monial dance.

B. 8peech: monologue, dialogue, dis-cussion, poetry, song.

C. Sound: signals, music.D. Symbols, monuments.E. Writing: characters, cursive script,

ideogrammatic characters.F. Images (in two dimensions) : artistic,

religious, pUbHcity, photographs.G. Images (dynamic in two dimensions) :

display panels, psychedelic Hghting,film ITV.

H. Logically, interconnected symbols:equations, notations.

I. Graphs (static and in two dimensions),charts.

J. Graphs (dynamic in two dimensions) :oscilloscope displays, instrumentplots.

K. Graphs (static in three dimensions).K. Graphs (dynamic in simulated three

dimensions) : computer graphics dis­plays.

M. Maps, plans, flow-charts, circuit dia­grams.

N. Structures (static in three dimens­ions) : sculpture, models, maquettes.

O. Structures (dynamic in three dimen­sions) : mobiles, working models.

P. Computer outputs (non-interactive)line print-out or display.

Q. Computer output (interactive): linepri ntout or display.

R. Computer graphics (dynamic in sim"ulated three dimensions) in colour.

S. Simulators. (4)

The felt need for information on aparticular topic, the preference for anyof the above forms of informationpresentation, and (in the case of thoseselected) the preference for the natureand organization of the informationpresented, may each depend upon theindividual's (or CUlture's) position res­pect to each of the following pre­logical axes of bias elaborated byW.T. Jones (5) :

A. Order IDisorder axis, which consistsof the range of attitudes lying betweena strong preference for fluidity,muddle and chaos and a strong pref­erence for system, clarity, and con­ceptual analysis.

B. Static IDynamic axis, in which, atone pole, there is a preference forthe changeless and eternal and, at theother pole, a preference for movem­ent and for explanation in geneticterms.

C. Continuity IDiscreteness axis, whichconsists of the range of attitudes bet­ween a preference for wholeness andcompleteness and a preference fordiversity.

D. Inner IOuter axis, which consists ofthe range of attitudes between a dem­and to «get inside » the objects ofone's experience and a tendency tobe satisfied with an external view ofthem.

E. Sharp-focus 180ft-focus axis, inwhichthe contrast is between a preferencefor clear and distinct experiencesand a preference for threshold exper­iences.

F. This-world I Other-world axis, inwhich readiness to believe that thespatio-temporal world is self-explan­atory is contrasted with a refusal tobelieve it is self-explanatory (and acontententment with the here-and­now is opposed to a preference forthe other-in-time and the other-in­space).

G. Spontaneity IProcess axis, in whichat one extreme there is a strong pref­erency for chance and novelty andat the other extreme, an equallystrong disposition to believe in dUlyestablished procedure.

Professor Jones makes the point thatthe influence of such biases structurethe conception of explanation that pre­dominates in a society; that is, theydefine, not the particular explanations,but the kinds of explanations that arefelt to be satisfactory. «As such, theycharacterize not merely the physicaltheory that a society develops but alsomuch of the legal, political, and socialbehaviour of that society» (p. 13).

Conclusion

The above sections have attempted tosurvey some of the « conceptual cages»in which different sectors of humansociety are emprisoned, mostly withoutchoice and often with much self-satis­faction. These cages constitute barriersto international, interdisciplinary andintercultural discourse. The questionis whether the solution to the problem(if it is really a problem) is to get asmany people as possible to subscribeto a particular approach, namely toget them all irito one cage, or whetherthere is not some other means of ben­efitting from the perspectives throughthe windows of all the cages. 0

25.

(1) The figures were obtained from WhittakersAlmanac 1974; the presentation is strictly acompromise based on other sources.

(2) For example French language sources cite100 m, compared to the 85 m given in thetable where the English figure is probablyinflated.

(3) Of particular interest is the U.S. Depart­ment of Labour coding system for the classif­ication of all occupations. This distinguishesoccupations by 7 possible relationships to

data . 9 to people . and 9 to things

(4) An earlier version of this list. together Withthe detailed advantages and disadvantages ofeach mode. was lirst presented by the authorin Working Paper N° 3 of th!,' IPSA Committeeon Conceptual and Terminological Analysisentitled: Relationships between elements ofknowledge. Hawaii I Brussels. 1971.

(5) W.T. Jones. The Romanl<c Syndrome; to­ward a new method In cultural anthropol09Yand history of ideas. The Hague, MartinusNijhoff. 1961.

(continued from page 227)

Nations Report on the World Social Situationwith special reference to the problem of balan­ced economic and social development (E / CN.5/346/ Rev. 1). United Nations publication, SalesNo.: 61.1V.4. and in Andre Piatler, Equilibreentre developpement economique et developpe­ment social, Conseil international des sciencessociales, Paris, 1962. The latter work. based inpart on regional papers commissioned by theIn'ternational Council of Social Sciences, con­tains an extensive bibliography.

(2) Planning principles and techniqu\ls havebeen described and progress towards the" ap­plication discussed in a number of reports ofthe Economic Commission for Latin Americaand the Latin American Institute for Economicand Social Planning. See . Progress in Plan­ning in Latin America. (Economic Bulletin forLatin America, Vol. VIII (1963), 80, 129-146);Part III of the Economic Survey of LatinAmerica 1964 (E. / CN.12 I 711 I Rev. 1) ; andCarlos Matus" Planning Systems and TheirEnforcement in Latin America, (ST I ECLA /ConI. 20/ L. 13). Recent studies of sectoral pro­gramming techniques are cited al appropriatepoints below.

(3) Piatier (op. cit.) points out that this interpre­tation of the social arose largely to flil the gapleft by a deliberate narrowing of the interestsof economists In the 19th century, and that aseconomists now widen their interests to includeproblems of employment, poverty, incomedistribution. education, etc., the content ofthe social, interpreted as a residual, shrinks.

(4) , For the purposes of the present survey.it would be futile to engage in elaborate distinc­tions between social, and '( economic onthe basis of avowed and unavowed motives ofnational policy-makers. The measures heretreated are those regarded as ., social .. by theUnited Nations and the specialized agencies:in general, they are measures that are' directlyrather than indirectly related to human wei­fare,.. International Survey of Programmesof Social Development (E /CN.5/301 / Rev.1), United Nations publication, Sales No.55.IV.B.

(5) See International Definition and Measurem­ent of Levels of Living: an Interim Guide(E / CN. 12 I 270 I Rev. 1). United Nations publi­cation, Sales No. 61.tV.7. One of the projectsof the United Nations Research Institute forSocial Development in Geneva calls for theconstruction of a unitary index of the level ofI iving, defined as the level of satisfaction ofwants assured by the flow of goods andservices received by the population in a unitof time. This project should result in a moreorderly grouping of components and Indicators.but it seems questionable whether a unitaryindex wiil ever be applicable to the realitiesof countries with incomplete statistics and widediscrepancies in the incomes, values and con­sumption patterns of different population strata.

26.

PRINCIPAL LANGUAGES

language or Group Speakers language or Group Speakers

Dev Dev ed inged ing Dev Dev

A. Indo-European (1934 m)1.1 Indo-Aeyan - Latvian j Lettish 2 m1.1 .1 . Indian 1.9.2. Slave languages- Hindi jUrdu jPanjabi j - Russian ~20 m

Pahari 200 m - Ukranian jRuthenian 41 m- Bengali 116 m - Bielorussian (White Russian 10 m-- Marathi 48 m - Polish 35 m- Konkani 2 m - Slovak 4 m--- Gujarati 29 m - Czech 11 m- Oriya 22 m - Slovene 2 m- Assamese 12 m - Serbo-Croatian 18 m- Lahnda 26 m - Macedonian 1 m- Sindhi 9 m - Bulgarian 9 m- Rajasthani 20 m 1.10. Basque- Bhili 4 m 1.11. Esperanto 1 m- Bihari jBhojpuri j

Maithili jMagahi 21 m B. Hamito-Semitic languages (163 m)- Nepali 10 m 1. Semitic- Kumaoni jGarhwali 1 m - Hebrew 3 m- Sinhalese 10 m - Arabic 117 m1.1.2. Dardic j Pisacha - Ethiopic

languages - Amharic 9 m- Kashmiri 3 m - Tigrinya 4 m

1.2. Iranian 2. Berber- Persian 23 m 3. Cushitic languages- Kurdish 6 m - Somali 5 m- Baluchi 2 m - Galla 7 m- Pashto j Pashtu 14 m 4. Chadic- Pamir (Shughni etc.) - Hausa 18 m- Yaghnobi - Angas --- Ossetic - Kotoko dialects -

1.3. Armenian 4 m - Bata dialects -1.4. Albanian 3 m1.5. Greek 10 m C. Caucasian languages (4 m)1.6. Romance languages - Georgian languages 3 m

- Italian 60 m - West Caucasian lang.- Rumanian 21 m - East Caucasian lang.- French 85 m( ')- Provencal 6 m D. Ural-Altic languages;- Spanish 202 m Eurasian & Northern

I- Portuguese 116 m Asian languages (256 m)- Catalan 5 m 1. Finno-Ugric or- Galician 2 m Uralian lang.

1.7. Celtic languages - Finnish 5 m- Breton jCornish - Estonian 1 m- Gaelic (Irish jScottish) - Lappish -- Welsh - Mordvin 1 m

1.8. Germanic languages - Hungarian jMagyar 13 m1.8.1. Scandinavian 17,5 m - Samoyedic lang. -

I - Icelandic - 2. Altaic languages!

I- Faroese - 2.1. Turkic languages- Norwegian 4 m - Uighur 4 m- Swedish 10 m - Chuvash jBolgar group 2 m

I - Danish 5 m - Turkish jOsmanli 38 m1.8.2. West Germanic - Azerbaijani 8 m- German 100 m - Kashgai j Ainaly jBaharlu- Yiddish 3 m - Turkmen 2 m- Dutch jFlemish 18 m - Kipchak-Koman -- Afrikaans 5 m - Uzbek jChagatai 9 m- English 345 m - Kirghiz 2 m

1.9. Baltic & Slave languages - Kazakh 5 m

I 1.9.1. Baltic languages - Bashkir 1 m- Lithuanian 3 m - Tatar 6 m

AND LANGUAGE GROUPS*

27.

•c .1 )In millions

Language or Group Speakers Language or Group Speakers

Dev Dev Dev Dev

ed ing ed ing

22. Mongolian lang./Khalka 1 m 1.3. Micronesian lang. -2.3. Tungus lang. - 1.4. Melanesian lang. -

3 Paleosiberian lang. - 2. Papuan languages -4. Korean 50 m 3. Australian languages -5 Japanese 108 m6. Ainu - I. Languages of Negro-Africa (115 m)

1. Niger-Kordofanian familyE. Dravidian languages (67 m)

1.1. Kordofanian ISudan Group- Telugu -- Tamil 31 m 1.2. Niger-Congo & Bantu-- Malayalani 17 m - Akan ITwi-Fante 4 m- Kanarese - Fulani 2 m

- Tulu 1 m - Wolof 2 m- Ijaw 1 m

G. Languages of South - Mande languages 1 mEast Asia (902 m) - Gur lang. I Mossi 3 m1. Sino-Tibetan lang. - Kamba 1 m

1.1. Burmese Lolo 22 m - Kikuyu 2 m1.2. Tibetan 7 m - Kituba 2 m1.3. Bodo ITangsa IKachin - - Kongo 1 m1.4. Naga/Chin - - LUba-Lulua 3 m15. Chinese - LUhya / Luhia 1 m

- Mandarin 628 m - Luo 1 m- Cantonese 46 m - Ewe 2 m- Wu 41 m - Yoruba 11 m- Min 38 m - Ibo Ilgobo 9 m- Hakka 20 m - Edo 1 m- VI 3 m - Tiv 1 m

1 6. Thai ILao 29 m - Efik Ilbidio 2 m2. Annamese group - Bamba 1 m

- Vietnamese 36 m - Ganda I Luganda 3 m- Muong - Mbundu 3 m

3 Mon-Khmer lang. - Lingala INgala 2 m- Bu rmese IMon 22 m - Makua 2 m- Cambodian IKjmer 6 m - Mal inke-Bambara-Dyula 5 m

4. Munda lang. - ·Nyamwezi-Sukuma 2 m- Santal! 4 m - Nyanja 2 m- Khasi - - Rundi 3 m- Mundari - - Rwanda 6 m

- Sango 1 mH. Languages of Australasia - Saped i I Sotho 2 m

and Polynesia (204 m) - Sotho 2 m1. Austronesian or Malayo- - Swahili 16 m

Polynesian lang. (110 m) - Tswana 2 m1.1. Malaya languages - Xhosa 4 m

- Malay-Indonesian 90 m - Shona 4 m- Tagalog 20 m - Zulu 4 m- Malagasy 8 m 2. Nilo-Saharan group- Batak 2 m - Songhai -- Sundanese 14 m - Kanuri ITeda I Zaghawa 2 m- Javanese 43 m - Maban -- Balinese 3 m - Furian -

- Bikol 2 m - Char/-Nile -

-- Samar-Leyte 1 m - Coman -- Panay-Hiligaynon 4 m 3. Khoisan languages_. Bugi 2 m- Cebrano 3 m J. American languages- Dayak 1 m North American lang.- 1I0cano 4 m 2. South & Cent. Ameri can 7 m- Madurese 7 m - Guarani 2 m

1.2. Polynesian lang. 1 m - Quecha 5 m

20.

TENTATIVE LISTING OF(in thousands

Primary users Secondary users Tertiary users

Full knowledge Partial use Limited understanding

ed ing ed ing ed ingDev Dev Dev Dev Dev Dev

SOCIAL SCIENCESS0C1Ology 29 3 236 51 1,120 208

- Demogffiphy/Popu~t~n (2) (01) (13) (3) (62) (12)Rural-urban (3) (0.2) (24) (5) (112) (21)

-- SO':;181 psychology (8) (0.7) (64) (14) (302) (56)Socli.d organlzatJOn (11) (1) (92) (20) (438) (81)Social problBms (4) (04) (35) (7) (165) (31)

;::.latl')!iG::' 10 1 83 18 396 73~",ych{Jlo(JY J:l4 64 604 518 3,510 239

Cl IrlICo.; psychology (34) (17) (155) (133) (90) (60)Counselfll1g psychology (13, (6) (59) (51) (34) (23)Educational psychology (14) (7) (62) (53) (36) (24)Phys~loglcal psychology (14) (7) (63) (54) (36) (24)

- Developmental psychology (8) (4) (38) (33) (22) (14)~ Organizational psychology (8) (4) (39) (33) (22) (15)- Psychomatrics (3) (1) (13) (11 ) (7) (5)

Polrtlcal SCIence 27 3 221 48 1,050 t95- Internal politICS (20) (2) (165) (36) 780 (145)-- lnternatJOnal relatIOns (4) (004) (34) (7) (16) (30)

Economics 51 5 421 91 1,990 371- Genera! (15) (1) (121) (26) (57) (107)- Finance / Banking (6) (0.5) (46) (10) (218) (40)- International (3) (0.2) (21) (5) (101) (19)- BUSIness (9) (0.9) (76) (17) (363) (67)- Industnal organIzation (3) (03) (28) (6) (131) (24)

Law / JUrisprudence 67 17 552 312 2,340 1,160Public Administration 6 (0.5) 46 10 218 37

- General administration (3) (0.3) (29) (6) (134) (23)- PubliC poliCY (2) (0.2) (17) (4) (70) (14)

SocIal Welfare 5 0.5 42 9 201 34Home Economlcs 7 0.7 59 13 282 48EeJuca110n 768 126 3,380 1,055 20,500 461

-- Pnmary (325) (53) (1,430) (446) (8,660) (195)~ Secondary (258) (42) (1,135) (354) (6,880) (150)-- Urllverslty (186) (31) (818) (255) (4,950) (112)

Arlthropology 5 0.5 45 10 2t2 36.- Archaeology/Prehistory (1) (0.5) (6) (5) (33) (22)

Biological/Physiological (004) (0.04) (4) (0.8) (17) (3)-- CUltural/Social. Ethnology (4) (0.3) (31) (7) (147) (25)- LmgulsIlc anth (0.2) (0.02) (2) (0.3) (8) (1 )

Ltngulstics I PhonetiCs 7 0.7 59 13 281 48

MATH & NATURAL SCIENCES

MathematiCs (100) (25) (330) (146) (4,400) (918)- Algebra 9 2 30 13 405 (83)--- Functional AnalYSIS 14 4 47 21 626 (130)- Geometry 3 0.7 9 4 118 (25)- LogiC 2 0.5 6 3 64 (17)- Number Theory 1 004 5 2 65 (14)- Numerical Analysis 4 1 12 5 16 (33)- Operations Research 14 4 47 21 405 (83)- Probability 3 0.7 9 4 117 (24)- Topology 4 1 15 6 196 (41)

Astronomy (7) (2) (23) (10) (301) (63)- Astrophysics 7 2 22 9 286 (60)- Planetology 1 0.3 3 1 44 (9)

Earth Se lences (61) (16) (202) (89) (2,700) (560)-- Geodesy / Surveying 0.5 0.1 2 0.6 20 (4)- Geology 31 8 104 46 1,375 (288)- Geochemistry / Mineralogy 3 0.7 9 4 121 (25)_. Geophysics 5 1 17 7 228 (47)- Oceanography 4 1 13 6 176 (37)- Hydrology 2 0.6 8 3 109 (24)- Meteorology/Climatology 12 3 40 18 535 (111)- Palaeontology 3 0.8 11 5 146 (30)- Geography 9 1 756 166 3,580 (614)

Physics and MechaniCS (139) 35 460 202 6,120 (1,275)- Acoustics 4 1 14 6 184 (38)- OptiCS 9 2 30 13 397 (82)-- Thermodynam ICS / Thermal physics 3 0.7 10 4 135 (28)

2 [) •

DISCIPLINE « SPEAKERS »

of speakers)

Primary users Secondary users Tertiary users

Full knowledge Partial use Limited understanding

ed ing ed ing ed ingDev Devi Dev Dev Dev Dev

- Electromagnetism 5 1 15 206 (43)

- MechanIcs 08 11 5 144 (30)

- Nucleat physics 18 58 26 777 (161)

-_. FluId nHH:hanics 6 2 21 9 282 (9)

Sr,lld physIcs / Crystallography 22 6 74 33 999 r;'Of))

MO!Rcular physIcs 4 1 14 6 183 (38)

I fl';trUm(:fltallon 10 2 33 15 440 (92)

Chl,rrlls\ry (236) 60 782 345 10,420 (2,170)A(Jr1cuJII.lral 27 7 90 40 1,200 (250)BI()(,ht:lfli~try 33 8 109 48 1,455 (303)An;l!ytlu!l 15 4 50 22 662 (158)

_. Food SClfmce 6 1 20 9 270 (56)Inorganic 11 3 36 16 482 (100)

-- OrQunlc 41 10 134 59 1,790 (374)Macromoleculal 26 7 88 39 1,117 (244)

,- Physical 25 6 84 37 1,115 (232)

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCESBiology 32 8 106 47 1,415 (295)

-- Genetics 6 1 21 9 276 (57)

MIcrobiology 15 4 50 22 670 (139)

- Immunology 3 0.7 10 4 137 (29)

-- Botany 8 2 27 12 364 (76)

.- Zoology 10 2 33 14 430 (91)

- Ecology 11 3 35 15 467 (97)

- Entomology 9 2 29 13 388 (81)

- BiOphysIcs 5 1 17 8 232 (48)

.- Vltology 3 0.9 12 5 158 (33)

Agricultural sCiences 44 16 342 174 5,170 462

- Sol! sCience / Pedology 5 2 37 19 565 50

.._- Forestry 8 3 60 30 905 81

Agronomy 6 2 46 23 695 62

Animal husbandry 4 1 29 15 435 39

Marine husbandry 7 2 52 26 782 70

- Plant pathology 5 2 42 21 635 57

Horticulture 5 2 36 19 552 49

Ve1erJrlory medicine 3 1 27 14 405 36

ENGINEERING (286) (18) (2,010) (485) (19,500) (4,050)

. -- Mechanical 30 2 211 51 2,055 426-- Electrlcal 59 4 415 100 4,020 (835)- Chemical 41 2 288 69 2,795 (581)-- Ap.rospace 12 8 87 21 845 (175)-- Civil / Structural 27 2 188 45 1,830 (380)-_. Metallu r9 ical 7 0.4 47 11 455 (94).~ Computer / Information sciences 29 2 206 50 2,000 (416)

-- InformatlOn theory 1 0.9 9 2 92 19- Computer / design 2 0.1 13 3 122 25- Programming / Systems 12 0.7 85 21 830 172- Computer Processing 8 0.5 56 14 548 114_. BLlslIless procesSIng 10 0,6 72 17 702 146

MEDICAL SCIENCES 1,008 (366) (40) (36) (8,290) (3,500)

ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONMam1gement / Polic} 34 3 278 61 1,310 225

FINE ARTSPlanning (urban, ete) 0.4 0.05 4 0.8 18 3Architecture 101 19 462 158 2,660 1,885

Arts 9 2 41 14 238 169

MUSIC 19 3 85 29 492 349

Thealre / Drama / Speech 26 5 116 40 672 550

HUMANITiES (550) (256) (2,480) (2,120) (14,450) (965)

Historical SCIences 105 49 472 404 2,750 183Philosophy 36 17 162 138 944 63RelIgIon /Theology 65 30 292 250 1,705 114Journalism 1 0.1 13 3 61 10Library sCience 3 1 129 110 750 50lIteratu re / Languages 208 97 938 801 5,460 365

30.

problems-The

use of several languages. .

arising from the

and possibi Iities

Absence of a lingua franca

It would be optllnistic to expect wideacceptance of any harmonized socialsCience terminology if the latter isbased on one language only.The UNISIST Study for a WorldSCience Information System notes(pp. /2-73) that:

English now accounts for about 40 %of the world literature, regularlyyielding (as are French and Ger­man) to the rising group of «Eas­tern» languages, e.g. Slavic, Chineseand Japanese.No one can predict what the situ a­t ion wi 11 be twenty or fifty yearsahead, nor does anyone possessreliable data on the present use offoreign language materials in thescientific community.The position of English as a linguafranca of science is contested bysome governments either to conso­lidate a new country via a nationallanguage or in the belief that lan­guage can be artificially maintainedas a vehicle of a culture.The chances of securing internationalacceptance of English as the standardlanguage of science are, in presentcircumstances, very poor.

Language preferences

Apart from these aspects, there is theextremely serious problem that socialscientists in one language group tendto either ignore foreign language mat­erial or find it " less relevant» to theirparticular concerns. This is particularlysignificant across the English,French,German divides. Concepts given inforeign languages may be difficult tocomprehend if one is less than comple­tely at home with the language in ques­tion. An unconscious hostility to con­cepts expressed in foreign languagesmay even build up.A recent study of 1000 social scienceresearch information users in GreatBritain has just been completed (1).It shows that 18 % of the sample readEnglish only, 75 % read French, and27 % read German. Of those who saidthey were able to read a foreign lan­guage,only one-third regularly scanliterature in that language. There iseven a reluctance to follow up articlesin another language. (It was also notedthat 22 % make no use of abstracts or

.,

indexes, '\5 % never use bibliogra­phies, 22 % do not use library cata­logues, and 48 % do not consult thelibrarian.)

Language group incompatibilities

There is also the possibility that a con­cept may first be expressed, or mayonly be expressible, in a given foreignlanguage. It would be an advantage tobe able to «register» it as such andworry about the translation afterwards.The author who has done much taemphasize the difficult-ta-comprehendcontrasts between meanings in the stan­dard Indo-European languages andthose in other language groups is Ben­jamin Lee Whorf. These contrasts are.well-illustrated in the following extractfrom one of his papers (2).

" To sum up the matter, concepts of" time" and "matter" are not givenin substantially the same form by ex­perience to all men but depend uponthe nature of the language or languagesthrough the use of which they hav.ebeen developed.. Our own "time"differs markedly from Hopi "durat­ion". It is conceived as like a spaceof strictly limited dimensions, orsometimes as like a motion upon sucha space, and employed as an intellec­tual tool accordingly. Hopi "duration"seems to be inconceivable in termsof space or motion, being the mode inwhich life differs from form, andconsciousness in toto from the spatialelements of consciousness. Certainideas born of our own time-concept,such as that of absolute simultaneity,would be either very difficult to expressor impossible and devoid of meaningunder the Hopi conception, and wouldbe replaced by operational concepts.Our "matter" is the physical subtypeof "substance" or «stuff» which isconceived as the formless extensionalitem that must be joined with formbefore there can be real existence. InHopi there seems to be nothing corres­ponding to it; there are not formlessextensional items; existence mayormay not have form, but what it alsohas, with or without form, is intensityand duration, these being nonexten­sional and at bottom the same".

The differences are not restricted tohigh level abstractions such as " time»

and "matter" but may permeate thewhole perspective. The famous hypo­thesis associated with the work of vonHumboldt, Sapir and formalized byWhorf suggests:

" that the commonly held belief thatthe cognitive processes of all humanbeings posses a common logicalstructure which operated prior toand independently of communicat­tion through language, is erroneous.It is Wharf's view that the linguisticpatterns themselves determine whatthe individual perceives in this

'world and how he thinks about it.Since these patterns vary widely,the modes of thinking and perceiv­ing in groups utilizing different lin­guistic systems will result in basic­ally different world views" (3)" We are thus introduced to a newprinciple of relativity which holdsthat all observers are not led by thesame physical evidence to the samepicture of the universe, unless theirlinguistic backgrounds are similar ..We cut up and organize the spreadand flow of events as we do largelybecause, through our mother tongue,we are parties of an agreement to doso, not because nature itself is seg­mented in exactly that way for allto see" (4).

Each language becomes a classificationand organization of experience in itsown right. As such each may be signif­icantly different from the other andmay structure the forms and categoriesby which the individual not only com­municates byt also analyzes nature,perceives or neglects particular phen­omena or relationships, and constructshis model of the world (5).A striking example of the possibiedifferences is given by Marshall Walkerin discussing the social factors whichaffect scientific models:

" The language of the Wintu Indiansof California seems to indicate away of thinking quite differentfrom our own. Imagine the surfaceof a table with a book lying on it.The remainder of the surface isbare. In English one describes thesituation by saying, "The book ison the table". In Wintu one says,"The table bumps ". The Englishphrase has already committed the

speaker to an entire analytical phi­losophy of the situation: (1) thereare two objects: (2) there is a polar­ity such that one object is above theother; (3) there is an implicationthat the book is supported by thetable. None of this analysis is pre­sent in the Wintu sentence, whichIS purely topological... The scien­tist who wishes to be as objectiveas possible in his study of the exter­nal world will try to free himselffrom the possible constraints of hisown lanquage ., (6).

Von Bertalanffy suggests that theWhorfian hypothesis may be extended.He argues that the categories of know­ledge depend on biological and cultu­ral factors. In particular, he arguesthat Aristotelean logic actually coversonly the extremely small field ofsubject-predicate relations. The all­or-none concepts of traditional logicfall short of continuity concepts basicfor mathematical analysis. He is withWhorf in hoping that other languagesmay permit basically different kindsof "science" which would representother aspects of reality as well or evenbetter than does the current scientificworld picture (7).

The suggestion has been made, forexample, that a language like Hopimight be better suited to verbalizingthe concepts of modern physics thanEnglish. But some of the non-Indo­European languages may also haveimportant and hitherto unknown con­cepts concerning the functioning ofsocial processes - an area in whichcontinuity is even more vital to under­standing than in the natural sciences.Some languages may in fact constituterich sources of concepts which couldprove useful to the understanding ofdynamic evolving social complexity.Little work seems to have been doneon this possibility - most of the exam­ples refer to contrasts of interest tothe natural science perspective. Infact the field of comparative linguisticsseems to be made up of "one shot"studies with very little comparison.Where comparisons are made it is atthe formal rather than the con ceptuallevel (8), so that with the exception ofa few startling examples which augurfor a fascinating variety of thinkingstyles, little information is available.It may be that few linguists are com­petent to write on the concepts of morethan one or two non-Indo-Europeanlanguages, so that no wide-ranging studyor classification is possible, and no., handbook" is available. The absenceof such a study only helps to concealthe many differences from the Indo­European perspective the existenceof such differences is certainly notwidely recognized (9).The whole argument raises the possib­ility that the projects currently envis­aged would not be sufficiently generaland flexible to be able to "contain"the concepts of some other language

groups. The either-or distinction bet­ween "entities" and "relationships"may only amount to a magnificientexercise in handling Aristotelian "sub­stance" and "attribute" as represen­ted in Indo-European nouns and pred­icate adjectives, Is the concept ofdistinct, persisting "entities" commonto all languages and can all conceptsof "relationships" be adequatelyrepresented by graph-theoretic typeareas?

David Sohm. a theoretical physicistinterested In Piaget's and Gibson'swork on the problems of perception,gives detailed arguments against per­manence of .. entities" and conclu­des (10)

"it is clear that both in commonexperience and in scientific investig­ations, the objects, entities, substan­ces, etc., that we actually experience,perceive, or observe have always(thus far) shown themselves to beonly relatively invariant in theirproperties, this relative invariancehaving often been mistaken forabsolute permanence" (p. 14)." It is evident then that by consid­ering entities and structures asrelatively invariant, with an as­yet-unknown domain of invariance,we avoid making unnecessary andunprovable assumptions concerningtheir absolute invariance. Such aprocedure has enormous advantagesin research, because one of the con­cepts - not only in physics but alsoin the whole of science - has beenthe tendency to hold onto oldconcepts beyond their domain of val­idity " (p. 121-2).

Colin Cherry (11), a telecommunicat­ions engineer interested in the psychol­ogy of communication with developingcountries, considers that relationshipsmay not be meaningfully representedby graph-theoretic links and that otherforms of representation might be pref­erable.One response is in the work on linguis­tic universals. It is suggested that termsexist in all languages to designate ob­jects which meet a condition of spatio­temporal contiguity. And, in general,that all languages are cut to the samepattern without there necessarily beingany point by point correspondencebetween particular languages (12). It isrecognized that work in this area isonly at the early stages (13).It would seem important to avoid los­ing the richness of alternative perspec­tives by confining any future project(e.g. UNISIST) to one or two languagesin one language group - particularlyas the concepts which need to be in­ventoried are supposed to be in someway relevant to the cultures using suchlanguages. That this is significant is in­dicated by the fact that 50 % of theworld'S population currently uses non­Indo-European languages. This includesthe Chinese, who are unlikely to rem-

31 •

ain a minor influence on world society.The argument that many learn an Indo­European "second » language is weakin that being present in classes atwhich such a second language is taughtor used is no evidence that the languageand its perspective «take" in the in­dividual - as nost school leaversknow. Even if they do take, it is ques­tionable whether it is satisfactory toignore the individual's problems oftranslating between the two conceptualsystems.

Problems of translationIt may astonish many people toknow that contemporary linguisticshas concluded that translation betweenlanguages is theoretically impossible.Chomsky notes (p. 202)

"In fact, although there is muchreason to believe that languages areto a significant extent cast in thesame mold, there is little reason tosuppose that reasonable procedures(not involving extralinguistic infor­mation) of translation are in generalpossible ".

Georges Mounin, who notes the sameconclusion, has summarized the theo­

'retical difficulties prior to consideringwhy, how. and within what limits thepractical operation of translations isrelatively possible (14).Some of the difficulties he notes argueagainst any attempt to force any futureproject into a unilingual mode

certain languages have highly dev­eloped terminologies in areas wherethere are few Indo-European equiv­alents (e.g. the Eskimos and « snow"(30 terms), the Argentine gauchosand" horse colouring » (200). Thereis little value in attempting a defin­itive translation when no exactequivalent exists.the situation becomes more complexwhen dealing with socio-culturalterms, e.g. how can «brother» andsister be translated into Maya whenthat language only has terms for«younger brother » or <, olderbrother »(15) Much closer to theconcerns of any social scienceproject is the simple problem oftranslating "people's capitalism»into French (16).another excellent example, notedby Colin Cherry is that whilst thereis no difficulty in translating thecolour « red» into and from Rus­sian, the associations in the twolanguages are very different. InEnglish: blood red, red in tooth andclaw, red with anger, red light dis­trict, etc. In Russian the translationof "red» is synonymous with" beautiful" and has associationsequivalent to the English " golden"- hence «Red Square» and the"Red Army» should be meaning­fully translated as the «GoldenSquare» and the "Golden Army>,.How much has international tensionbeen aggravated and reinforced by

this simple error? Similarly, inChinese, « red. is primarily assoc­iated with «joy., «properity.,« luck» and« happiness. ('). 0

(") Extract from A.J.N. Judge Toward a Con.cepl Inventory; suggestions !or a computerizedprocedure (Paper presented to a panel of theCommittee on Conceptual and TerminologicalAnalysis, International Political Science Asso­ciation, 9th Congress, Montreal, 1973).

{1) Maurice Line (Ed.) Information ReQui.rements of Researches in the Social Sciences.Bath University. 1971. 2 vols.12) 6.L Wharf. Language, Thought, andReality. New York, WHey, 1958, 278 P( The retation of habitual thought and beha·vlour to lang uage ).

(3) F. Fearing. An examination of fhe ·con.ceptions of Benjamin Wharf in the light oftheories of perception and cognition In H.Hoijer (Ed.). Language in Culture. AmericanAnthropologist, 56 (1954). Memoir 79. 47.(4) 6.L. Whorf. Collected Papers on Metalln.guistics. Washington, Foreign Service Institute,['epartment of Stale. 1952.(5) See Whorl, op. cil.

(6) Marshall Walker. The Nature 01 ScienlilicThought. Prenllce. Hall, 1963, p. 103.(7) These points are based on LUdwig vanBertalenffy's account of the Whorfian hypothe·sis in: The relativity of categories in :General Syslems Theory, New York, Braziller,1968.

(8) One reason is that a maior school of ling.Ulstics denies the need to consider .. 88man·fics and" concepts ,ciaiming that all under.slandonll relevanl 10 the diSCipline can begained from anelysis of syntax. A second

reason may be. as Sapir has argued, that manyhnguists consider such languages .. primitiveand therefore unlikely to constitute a sourceof concepts unknown to the Indo·luropeanculture.(9) Marshall Walker (The Nature of ScientificThought) notes (p. 103.4) "The student ofscience also has a vital need for comparativelinguistics in order to acquire experience inthe isolation of concerts from Iheir languagematrix. The usual language departments of auniversity are not much help for this Iype ofstudy... There is need for a course for under·graduates (not language malors) which isdesigned 10 Illustrate the expression of conceptsby different language families. Pending thearrival of such courses the student of sciencewill have to do it himself as best he can

(10) David 60hm. The Spacial Theory of Relat·ivily. N.Y., Benjamin, 196.(11) Colin Cherry. World CommunicatIOn;threat or promise? London, WHey, 1972.(12) Noam Chomaky, Aspects of the Theoryof Syntax, Cambridge, Mlr, p. 29-30.(13) See: JH. Greenberg (ed.) Universals ofLanguage. Cambridge. MIT. 1963

(14) Georges Moun,". L.. probleme. tMoreli·ques de la Iraduction. Paris, Gallimard, 1963(15) A special issue of lhe ETC (In,ldule ofGeneral Semantics), 15, 2, March 1958 IS

entirely devoted to interpretation and inlercul·tural communication. It gives many examplesof this sort of problem.(16) Georges Mounin, op. cll., p. 67·68.

( ') The author is grateful to Mr. Thai WoTsan 10r this informrttion.

TO what extent have the pOSitive associationsof the colour In the two cultures influencedthe marked success of socialism there, cam·pared 10 that in Anglo· Saxon culture, where Ithas more negative 8ssociations? Another veryreal example is the report that Coca Cola haddifficully selling their brown liquid in WestAfrica until its colour was chanqed to orange.

33.

Introduction

Example distinction series

Sources of difficulty

Two unrelated series may be cited asexamples. In each case the qualifiedwords merely give an indication of therange of application of the series of pre­fixes.

langageinternational

A.3. Possession of opposite qualityimplies that not only is the qualitylacking but that its very oppositeand most antipathic is present.

AA. Lack in a quality which should bepresent

implies that not only is the qualitylacking but that that quality is onethat should be present in this case,namely that it is equitable, just orexpected that the quality should bepresent.

A.5. Absence of quality experiencedas a loss

- implies the lack of the quality (whichmay be regretted).

A.6. Against the quality- implies disapproval of the quality

itself.

A.? Counteracting quality- implies action to counteract the

effects of the quality which is notapproved.

Internationaldiscourse

A. Negative Prefixes

~@~~~~vmro~ ~ro~~

ro~~

~@~~m~~~

~~~v~~~v~@~~

Without referring to the word to whichthe negative prefix may be attached toform a perticular series, we can con­sider the following range of negativeconcepts. (In a given language, anequivalent prefix mayor may not beavailable. In addition, other distinc­tions may be present).

Despite these difficulties the distinc­tions do represent definite quantumjumps in perspective with very differentimplications for the social organizationto which they may be related. It is not,however, the purpose of this paper toenter into the debate to clarify themeaning or relationship of the differentterms in each series. The purpose israther to show how such distinctions,if clearly established in the language oforigin, may be distorted on translation.Each series is taken in turn below.

POSSIBLE AMBIGUITIES INTHE TRANS~ATION OF

INTERRELATED CONCEPTSBETWEEN SECTORS,

JARGONS OR LANGUAGES

inler-(djsciplinary)cross-(cul!urally)pluri·(national)mulli·(national)lrans-(disc jpl inary)supra-(national)mela-(discipl inary)

BA

non-(violence)i1-(legal)anli·(govern mental)de·(militarization)counler-(revol utionary)a-(politjcal)un-(democratic)dis-{armament)under-(developed)mis-(inlormed)

Some of the sources of difficulty in en­suring the preservation of such distinc­tions on translation are as follows:1. Concept not expressible through

the words of the language (Iangueen frangais) of translation.

2. Concept not expressible throughterms of technical language (lan­gage en frangais) in question, whet­her or not translation is required.

3. Ambiquity of word in original lan­guage.

4. Ambiquity of word in language oftranslation.

5. Incorrect choice of word in originallanguage (by author).

6. Incorrect choice of word in languageof translation (by translator).

7. Even if equivalent terms are found,the relationship between the ele­ments of the series may be differentin the second language and there­fore bias the series in some unfores­sen way.

Discourse in international society de­pends to a quite important extent onthe use of rather subtle and interrelateddistinctions. Some of these are esta­blished and preserved by the use of aseries of prefixes, at least in the indo­european languages. An example is:inter-national, mufti-national, cross­national, trans-national.The purpose of this paper is to drawattention to the possibility that suchneat sets of distinctions may be diffi­cult to translate, particularly into non­indo-european languages, without lea­ding to gaps in the series or blurringsome of the distinctions.

There are two difficulties in conside­ring these series. Firstly, the relations­hip between the elements of a series ISnot simple, as will be shown. Secondly,there is a considerable degree of con­fusion, even in the language of origin(in this case English) as to distinctionsbetween the terms in each series. (T;heconfusion is less great within any par­ticular disciplinary jargon, however.)

A.1. Lack of quality (without its oppositenecessarily being present)

implies that the lack is a feasibleoccurrence and that the quality inquestion is a useful descriptor.

A.2. Quality irrelevantimplies that the presence or ab­sence of this quality is consideredto be irrelev<,!nt, suggesting that thequality in question is I not a usefuldescriptor.

Confusions possible with Series A.

As an example of the types of difficultywhich may occur, whether on transla­tion to a different language, or simplyin converting to a different terminologi­cal jargon, consider how concept A.1.may be confused with any of the othersin the series.

A 1 / A2 if a quality is considered to beso irrelevant or subtle that its pre-

34.

sence or absence does not meritcomment, then it may be very diffi­cult to distinguish from a simplelack of the quality.

A 1 / A3 if a quality, considered to be ofgreat importance, is lacking, it maybe very difficult to distinguish thiscondition from the presence of thecontrary quality.

A 1 / A4 if a quality, considered to benormally present, is lacking, it maybe very difficult to distinguish this" neutral" condition from an "ab­normal" condition. The response toabnormality is then the only stableone.

A1 / A5 if a quality, considered to beextremely desirable, is lacking, itmay be very difficult to distinguishthis "neutral" condition from a" regretful» one, in which the absen­ce is perceived as a loss. The ex­pression of regret is the only stablemanner of perceiving the loss.

A 1 / AB if a quality, considered to beextremely undesirable, may be pre-

!

sent, it is very difficult to renderunambiguous the concept that it is« not present". For in such a case,an attitude of being against its pre­sence is the only guarantee of itsnon-presence.

A1 I A7 if a quality is considered to beso undesirable that the only respon­se to it is to act to counter its effects,then it may be very difficult to es­tablish the viabi lity of the neutralobservation of the non-presence ofthe quality.

Similar confusion may arise with con­cept A.2, A.3, etc. And, in the case ofa particular translation problem, severalof these conceptual pitfalls may bepresent when attempting to preservethe interrelationship between the ele­ments of the series.

B. Spatial Organization Prefixes

As for the negative prefix series, wecan look at the series of conceptswhich give rise to the second series.

(This is partly illustrated by thediagram on page 158).

B.1. Several units unrelated, except asa collection of units of the samekind.

B.2. Several units bilaterally interre­lated amongst themselves, but nototherwise organized.

B,3. Several units organized, but as animposition on the others of an ex­tension of the order natural to oneof them.

BA. Several units organized through anew higher level unit which pro­vides each unit with its place butdoes not provide for direct rela­tionship between them.

B.5. Several units organized through anew higher level unit which pro­vides each unit with its place anddoes provide for direct relationshipbetween them.

B.6. Several units organized within anew organizational framework,which contains them and any hig­her level units to which they mayrelate, such that the boundariesbetween the units are of less signi­ficance than their function withinthe larger framework - thus permit­ting the framework to relate to ex­ternal events.

B.7. A new framework of a higher logi­cal type within which the units,their relationships, and the frame­work by which they are contained,may be discussed critically.

Confusions possible with Series B.

(These are partly illustrated by thediagram on page 159).

The possible collapse of one or moreof these distinctions could be discussedas was done for Series A. However, itmay be sufficient to draw attention tothe general confusion in English be­twee,n the terms in each of the followinggroups. .except within well-definedjargon frameworks:

multi-national, cross-national, inter­national, trans-national, supra-na­tionalmulti-disciplinary, pluri-disciplinary,cross-disciplinary, IOter-d iscipl inary,trans-disciplinary, meta-disciplinary

and to the. at first sight trivial, problemof translating all of them into Germanor Russian where the greco-Iatin pre­fixes are not available.

C. Cooperation / conflict Series

As a further example of considerableimportance in distingUishing betweenvarieties of social organization, it isuseful to look at the series governingthe possible cooperation Iconflict re­lationships between social entities(" underdogs») and emergent control­lers (" topdogs ») in any social system.It has been suggested (on the basis ofthe advantage or disadvantage to each)that there are nine terms required for

35.

In this paper we have ourselves builtup the series which have been discus­sed. The assumption has been thatsuch series, whilst complex, were rea­sonably distinct. This may not howeverbe the case. Thus we have discussed astatic "spatial organization» serieswhen in some languages or ideologiesit may be impossible to examine (social)organization without focussing (a) onthe equity of the controller-controlleddimension, or (b) on the temporal or­ganization or origin /history /develop­ment dimension. This would mean thatother concepts would then be blurredonto those already discussed, and someof those discussed would not have anyplace in such a conceptual scheme.

this series. Since the same distinctionshave been made in the vocabularies ofdifferent physical, biological and socialscience, disciplines, it is not surprisingthat in each of them, two or more diffe­rent terms are sometimes found tohave the same meaning; a single termsometimes has two or more differentmeanings; and some terms are mis­sing (1).

A completed series of terms has beenprovided by E.F. Haskell :

symbiosis / constructive cooperation(advantage to controller; advantageto controlled)

commensalism(advantage to controller; no effecton controlled)

parasitism /imperialism(advantage to controller; disad­vantage to controlled)

(allolimy)(no effect on controller; disadvan­tage to controlled)

- synnecrosis /destructive conflict(disadvantage to controller; disad­vantage to controlled)

(ammensalism)(disadvantage to controller; no effect

,on controlled)

predation /guerilla terrorism(disadvantage to controller; advan­tage to controlled)

(allotrophy)(no effect on controller; advantageto controlled)

(no interaction)(no effect on controller; no effect oncontrolled).

The bracketed terms are those sugges­ted by Haskell. At first sight we appearto lack the English terms in socialscience terminology which correspondto the intermediate terms in the series- although the concept in each case isquite clear. Our daily vocabulary isonly sensitive to four of the nine termsif! the series.· Presumably we wouldblur the missing concepts into the re­lated ones which are commonly re­cognized.

Confusion between Series

,",," ,

"-"-

"-" ,

"-" ,------- --

Diagram illustrating the structuraldifferences between elements in aconceptual series distinguished byprefixes such as: multi-, cross-, pluri-,inter-, trans-, supra-, meta". (The dia­gram is an elaboration of one used byEric Jantsch. Towards interdisciplinar­ity and transdisciplinarity in educationand innovation. In: Centre for Educ­ational Research and Innovation. Inter­disciplinarity; problems of teachingand research in universities. Paris,OECD, 1972, p. 107.

/

//

/

/ C:J---rl:-~I/----------

8.7.

B.6.

B4.

B.5.

B.3.

B.1.

B.2.

36.

Dichotomies and Variables ConceptsConcept

InterrelationshipsCulture or Terminological

Languaga Jargon orSocialSector

" SOCIOLOGY» "ACADEMIC»

SECTOR G

SECTOR H

SECTOR J

SECTOR F

SECTOR K

JARGON B

JARGON D

JARGON C

JARGON E

JARGON A

" ENGLISH»

LANGUAGE S

LANGUAGE Q

LANGUAGE P

LANGUAGE T

LANGUAGE R

E.G. MULTI, CROSS,PLURI, SUPRA,INTER, TRANS,META

E.G. MULTI, CROSS,PLURI, SUPRA,INTER, TRANS

E.G. MULTI, CROSS,PLURI, INTER,SUPRA

E.G. MULTI, CROSS,PLURI, INTER

E.G. MULTI, INTER

E.G. MULTI, CROSS,INTER

fred Riggs notes that «in the socialsciences our ability to conceptualizevariables lags far behind the equivalentdevelopment of constructs in the phy­sical sciences ». (1) He also notes thedifficulties of giving precision to the in­termediate concept in a dichotomy.« This problem is a general one sincethe English language is richly endowedwith dichotomies, but impoverished inits supply of terms for normalities.Partly this may be due to our Aristo­telian traditions and the facile use ofnegative prefixes. Thus almost anyword which expresses a condition canbe put into a negative form, such asefficient and inefficient, successful andunsuccessful. .. but how can one referto mid-points on the scale? Here are alarge number of potentially useful con­cepts for which we simply lack accep­ted terms (3). He drives the pointhome by asking how the intermediateconcept could be expressed in each ofthe following dichotomies: centralized /de-centralized (or localized), concen­trated /de-concentrated (or dispersed),democratic /undemocratic, pluralistic /unpluralistic, alienated /non-alienated.He also makes the point that the con­ditions described by such terms occuron a scale. " People often say that it isunimportant to draw sharp lines for thedefinition of concepts because theyare matters of degree, i.e., variables ...However the scale of variation is itselfa concept. If we have anything subjectto variation, then there must a conceptdefining the variation itself. » He givestemperature, power and centralizationas variables for which we require mea­sures of degree of temperature, degreeof power and degree of centralization.We have difficulty in the case of thelatter two and are forced by our termi­nological and conceptual poverty intousing the extreme terms of each dicho­tomy.

Conclusion

Diagram illustrating interrelated concepts concerning a partiCUlar phenomenan (e.g.types 01 international organization), distinguishable within a given language, socialsector or academic terminology.

(Use of thiS method of illustration was suggested by E. KIngsley. F K Kopsteln. and R J Seidel;Graph theory as a meta-ianguage of communicable knowledge. In: M.D. Rubin (Ed.) Man in Systems.New York. Gordon and Breach, 1971. p. 43·69 who use a similar approach to distinguish between

what IS known, what the teacher knows, what he teaches, what he teGtches what thestudent understands and what the student recalls ).

It would seem that, aside from the con­fusion within a language concerningthe precise meaning and nature of aconceptual series (which may be aring or a branching chain of concepts),translation must considerably aggra­vate our difficulties. We are insensitiveto this because the process of transla­tion provides a translation but concealsthe difficulties. There is no semanticcheck.

(1) E.F. Haskel1. A classification of semanticerrors and Its application. (Unpubl ished lecturebefore Gamma Alpha Fraternity, GraduateChemical Society). New Haven. Yale, 1952.

(2) Fred Riggs. Toward a theory of definitlOns(Paper presented at the COCTA symposium.IPSA Congress. Montreal 1975).

(3J Fred Rlgg~. Concepts, Words and Termino­logy. Haww" COCTA. Working Paper n" 1.June 1971--_..._---------

? NO CONCEPT

o conceptual gaps within theparticlar terminology or language

• unambiguous distinctionswithin the terminology or language

LANGUAGE U JARGON W SECTOR L