Print this Article 
Send to a FriendThe language of science evolved from Egyptian, to Greek, to Arabic, to Latin, to French, to German and most recently to English. Why English when it is the native language of only about 375 million people? (1) Why not Mandarin Chinese which is the official language of a nation with a population of approximately 1.3 billion?
Economics and politics have provided a current language privilege for native English speakers, and a language burden for English Second Language (ESL) authors.
Ivan Bonta, the Erasmus University of Rotterdam Professor Emeritus of Pharmacology, whose native language is Hungarian, recently told me of the Viennese fiction writer Frederic Torberg who was a close friend of the Hungarian playwright Francis Molnar. Molnar's comedies had prompted theater queues not only in Budapest, but also on Broadway. The Nazis had compelled both writers to escape from their native countries, and after having lived in New York for some time the two friends chatted in German about emigrants' main difficulties - the language barrier. Torberg complained that sometimes the limitations of the English language were such that he was forced to say what he could rather than what he wanted to say. Sadly agreeing, Molnar's answer was: "Indeed, it happened to me occasionally that halfway through a sentence I had to reverse my political ideology" (2).
Kathryn Howard (an applied linguist) and I had the opportunity to study the effect of the requirement for English upon ESL authors who provide about 60 percent of manuscripts submitted to The Annals of Thoracic Surgery (3). We found that ESL authors had adapted well to the use of English, but they have had to work much harder to express themselves than native English- speaking authors. Kathryn was able to identify patterns of difficulties for ESL authors, and professional peers were better than language professionals in helping ESL authors to convey their messages well. The introductions to original contributions and the discussions of the results were the most challenging portions of the ESL manuscripts. I was able to decipher what the authors wanted to say because I knew the subject matter. Kathryn and I together were able to convert certain manuscripts from what the authors were able to say into what they wanted to say.
The Society of Thoracic Surgeons added a language workshop for ESL authors in January of this year, after the program had already been set. The only time available was 6:45 in the morning of the first day of the meeting, before the meeting actually began, and there had been little advertising for the session. I was surprised to see that a rather large room was full. The audience was diverse, including 24% (the largest representation) from Japan. I came away convinced that there is real interest in language programs among thoracic surgeons and believing that one such workshop can have only limited value.
In my opinion (and I am an ESL person), repeated sessions with a serious curriculum are needed. The findings and the thoughts of ESL people are valuable, and we must not relegate their authors to saying only what they can say. It is time for us to work together to ascertain that ESL authors and speakers will be able to say what they wish to say.
Neither peers nor language professionals alone suffice to make the best of ESL manuscripts, and so input from both should be obtained. I believe that professional societies and associations, publishers, editors and industry should sponsor language programs for ESL authors. In addition, ESL authors should commit themselves to using English regularly in their home environment so as to prepare themselves for international events.
Who would gain from such programs and what would be the gains? First and foremost, patients would gain because knowledge of the best available diagnostic and treatment methods would be more easily and better disseminated. ESL authors with improved English skills would gain confidence and easier acceptance of their findings and their ideas. The profession would profit from smoother communication. Editors and publishers would benefit from lower publication costs. Industry would benefit from more rapid acceptance of new products.