Language Learning and Historical Research: the Danger of Anglophone Parochialism

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article argues that the rise of Anglophone parochialism, which signifies the tendency of Anglophone scholars to neglect language learning, is detrimental to historical study. The article argues that historians of all disciplines, including those that focus on Anglophone history, should take language learning seriously. The study adopts a generalist perspective because existing critiques of Anglophone parochialism tend to focus on individual disciplines. Although their points are well made, their restricted scope limits their persuasiveness somewhat, and it also risks obscuring the extent of the problem. The article makes four points. Firstly, and perhaps most urgently, a failure to consult literature in other languages often leads parochial Anglophones to produce impoverished and distorted scholarship. Second, because of the close link between language and culture, learning languages is crucial for gaining cultural awareness and understanding linguistic nuances that defy easy translation. Third, learning languages for academic purposes is more straightforward than many parochial Anglophones assume. Fluency in all respects is usually never required; passive understanding of relevant literature is often sufficient. Machine translation, though no substitute for human effort, can serve as an educational tool. Fourth, Anglophone parochialism disadvantages non-Anglophone scholars whose disciplines have traditionally been multilingual. It forces them to publish in English to receive “international” recognition, a process that requires much time and expense, and that lessens their ability to write in languages with which they may be more familiar.