|
 |
Second thoughts about "polyglottery" | ||
Tags: Polyglottery | Motivation | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Lessons in Polyglottery |  | |
| ProfArguelles Moderator United States foreignlanguageexper Joined 7289 days ago 609 posts - 2102 votes  | Message 1 of 26 11 December 2008 at 12:22pm | IP Logged | ||
|
Regular visitors to this room will know that I regard Polyglottery as a distinctive scholarly discipline consisting of two main features:
1. the systematic, comparative, diachronic study of large numbers of languages, not only to understand them as linguistic phenomena, but also 2. so as to be able to read the classic texts of the great books of the world’s major civilizations in their original tongues. I have certainly not been having any second thoughts about the validity of the endeavor – that is in my life’s blood – but only about the descriptive nomenclature I have chosen. “Polyglottery” has always seemed better than any other alternative that I could think of, but really only by default, and there have long been several things that I do not like about it. To begin with, it is simply a rather ugly sounding word. Furthermore, it does not make immediately clear what the discipline entails. Finally, too many other people use the word to describe the simple accumulation of multiple languages in a general sense, i.e., without either the historical-developmental aspect or the literary aspect of the word as I use it. I have stuck with it until now for lack of a viable alternative, but last weekend I went to a professional conference on learning languages to the “distinguished level” of ILR 4 and above. While I was there, several friends, people very much in my corner, told me quite frankly that use of the word “polyglot” or its derivatives is inherently problematic and thus best avoided in academic circles as it tends to arouse at least one of two negative associations, namely pretension and/or dilettantism. If I were more entrenched and/or if I particularly liked the word, I might simply stick with it, hoping my definition of it would come to preponderate as the discipline became better known. However, it seems unnecessary and unwise to fight this battle as I am trying to get the discipline established. So what to do? As it is a new discipline, I feel almost compelled to have a new term, indeed, a neologism, and as the Latin and Greek sources for such have been pretty much mined out and as the discipline has international aspirations, I am inclined to go to the other etymological sources for terms for “language” and “literature” to combine, namely Arabic (lugaat and adab), Sanskrit (bhaasaa and saahitya), and Chinese Characters (various possibilities, aw and moon springing immediately to my Korean mind). It would be nice to combine several sources to highlight the global nature of the endeavor, but I cannot see a way to do this without creating a hideous Frankenstein of a word whose meaning would require chronic explanation as it would be clear to no one. Sticking within a single alternate tradition, Bhaasaasaahitya is not all that terrible, though it is rather long and sounds like a school of Hinduism. Lugaatadabiya is somewhat better, but still… This line of thinking does not seem to be terribly productive, so perhaps I am thrown back to: neo-philology. I am not partial to hyphenated words, but this would be more immediately transparent, familiar in a friendly fashion, and that hyphenated “neo-” would highlight both the continuity and the contrast from what came before. So what to do? Stick with “polyglottery”? Replace it with “neo-philology”? With “Lugaatadabiya”? With something else? Any and all thoughts and suggestions would be most greatly appreciated! Alexander Arguelles 3 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| Juan M. Senior Member Colombia Joined 5932 days ago 460 posts - 597 votes | Message 2 of 26 11 December 2008 at 1:06pm | IP Logged | ||
It is. I liken it to gluttony. I believe 'Polyglottery' imparts the wrong impression of what the pursuit entails. If one is approaching language in a scientific or technical manner, a term drawn from linguistics should be appropriate and sufficient. However, if languages are conceived not as a phenomenon to be studied, but as a medium through which to apprehend and revel in the creations of the human imagination--as I believe you do--, a word suggestive of such richness would be called for. I don't know though what such an alternative could be. It would have to capture the systematic and rigorous nature of language study, without confining as such its purpose or nature. Edited by JuanM on 11 December 2008 at 3:14pm 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| Marc Frisch Heptaglot Senior Member Germany Joined 6698 days ago 1001 posts - 1169 votes Speaks: German*, French, English, Spanish, Portuguese, Turkish, Italian Studies: Persian, Tamil | Message 3 of 26 11 December 2008 at 2:13pm | IP Logged | ||
|
First of all, I consider it rather unrealistic to expect an exotic term (i.e. of Arabic, Indian or Chinese etymology) to be accepted in the largely Western scientific community. Something Greek or Latin will do just fine. Here are some suggestions:
1) To my mind, someone who is "literate" does not only know the technical parts of a language (i.e. reading and writing correctly), but is also well-versed in its culture and the corresponding literature. So even if in the common usage "literacy" seems to be confined to mean the ability to read and write, I'd suggest "polyliteracy" (and accordingly "polyliterate"). 2) Change the word to something similar: Don't you agree that "polyglossery" sounds really sweet? It is sufficiently similar to "polyglottery" to immediately convey the idea of knowing many languages, but the 's' sound is such a harsh contrast that there is no risk of confusion. Maybe something like "polyglottism", "polyglossia", "polyglossism", or "polyglottia" would be an idea, too. 3) Maybe "polyglottery" is not such a bad term after all. You could use a qualifying adjective to distinguish it from the common perception of the term, e.g. "cultural polyglottery", "literary polyglottery", etc. As we say in German, "Namen sind nur Schall und Rauch": The choice of a proper word for the concept you wish to describe is by far not as important as the meaning you put into it. Best regards, Marc Frisch PS: My first association to "neo-philology" would be "philology of a modern language", i.e. the study of Spanish or Hindi as opposed to Latin or Sanskrit. Of course, this would be almost the opposite of what you're trying to say. Edited by Marc Frisch on 11 December 2008 at 2:39pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Raincrowlee Tetraglot Senior Member United States Joined 6735 days ago 621 posts - 808 votes Speaks: English*, Mandarin, Korean, French Studies: Indonesian, Japanese | Message 4 of 26 11 December 2008 at 2:20pm | IP Logged | ||
Speaking quite honestly, as appropriate as either of the latter two names might be, as a modern native English speaker, trying to use a foreign name, or rather a non-Latin/Greek based term, for your own concept seems even more pretentious than what is aroused by the use of the word "polyglot." Keeping Polyglottery has several benefits, not the least of which is that its doesn't take much of a leap of imagination to get from the word to what you mean by it. If a school is called a Polyglot Institute, people will quickly know that you will learn many languages there. You would also teach them more, but teaching multiple languages is the foundation. Anything else that uses English would likely be a short phrase, like Multi-Linguistic Communications or Cross-Language Training. Appreciation of Philology. Practical Philology. Something of that nature. Maybe there's something that would encapsulate your program neatly, but that would take a lot more thinking than I've done so far. EB Hansen Edit: I have to say, I like the idea of "polyglossia." That does sound sweet. Edited by Raincrowlee on 11 December 2008 at 2:51pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Farley Triglot Senior Member United States Joined 7125 days ago 681 posts - 739 votes 1 sounds Speaks: English*, GermanB1, French Studies: Spanish | Message 5 of 26 11 December 2008 at 3:55pm | IP Logged | ||
|
I’m partial to the sound of just philology with no hyphens. Your approach to language learning strikes me as being in the spirit of the 19th century philologists. Why change the name? You could kill to birds with one stone so to speak: coin your pursuit’s name and revive an (almost) forgotten field of study. How about: philology – is not just for dead languages, or something along those lines?
John F 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
 Iversen Super Polyglot Moderator Denmark berejst.dk Joined 6736 days ago 9078 posts - 16473 votes Speaks: Danish*, French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, Esperanto, Romanian, Catalan Studies: Afrikaans, Greek, Norwegian, Russian, Serbian, Icelandic, Latin, Irish, Lowland Scots, Indonesian, Polish, Croatian Personal Language Map | Message 6 of 26 11 December 2008 at 4:24pm | IP Logged | ||
|
Philology doesn't imply the use of multiple languages, - you can in principle become a philologist just by studying the literature and culture of one single language, just as you apparently can become a linguist without knowing more than your own native language. This could be remedied by using the more precise expression "comparative philology". In fact I have in addition to my major in French an minor (and obsolete) degree in something called "comparative and modern literature" - which is really something of a joke, considering my long-standing preference for non-fiction. We studied literature in several languages, though sadly in translation for the less wellknown languages. And sadly with a heavily communist bias.
That being said I like the term 'polyglot' precisely because it doesn't say anything about your reasons for learning those languages, and it is only the derivation 'polyglottery' that seems a little artificial to me. If it was used more frequently we could get accostumed to it. Edited by Iversen on 11 December 2008 at 4:27pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| JonB Diglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 6298 days ago 209 posts - 220 votes Speaks: English*, German Studies: Italian, Dutch, Greek | Message 7 of 26 11 December 2008 at 4:41pm | IP Logged | ||
|
Dear Prof Arguelles,
I would like to second Mr Farley's suggestion - it seems to me that 'Philology' is a ready made term which very aptly relates to your scholarly approach to language learning. I would also respectfully add my voice to those who have urged caution with regard to the coining of a new word such as 'Lugaatadabiya'. If you yourself were a native speaker of Arabic, then it is possible that such a coinage would seem appropriate. But since you are not an Arab, I believe it could seem rather bizarre to create a new word in this language. (One would then be inclined to ask: why single out Arabic? Why not Russian/Chinese/German, etc..?) If you are keen at all costs to choose a new word, then I would support Mr Frisch's suggestion of 'Polyliteracy'. Regards, Jon Burgess UPDATE: Having just seen Mr Iversen's post, I am inclined to agree with him that 'Comparative Philology' is more strictly correct. Edited by JonB on 11 December 2008 at 4:47pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Farley Triglot Senior Member United States Joined 7125 days ago 681 posts - 739 votes 1 sounds Speaks: English*, GermanB1, French Studies: Spanish | Message 8 of 26 11 December 2008 at 4:57pm | IP Logged | ||
Valid point, but ProfArguelles lessons still apply regardless of whether you study 1 or 10 languages. Philology seems to be the perfect word. 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
