榴莲视频

Don’t lament the sunset of imperial language departments

<榴莲视频 class="standfirst">Departments should refocus on brokering linguistic services to meet the needs of staff and students in a polyglot world, says Tomasz Kamusella
二月 26, 2025
A replica Spanish galleon, symbolising imperial languages
Source: Unaihuiziphotography/iStock

During my 30 years at different universities across the world, I have read many for the of modern languages departments.

Those that have followed Cardiff University’s proposal to?end its language programmes fit the pattern, insisting that understanding non-anglophone cultures is impossible without a deep grasp of their languages. An article published in Times Higher Education also suggests that it is unethical, demonstrating “an indifference to both linguistic and viewpoint diversity. Worse still, it would impose an anglo-normative framework on the cultural realities being examined.”

I agree. Yet language departments in their current guise do not address this deficiency, either. Their high-minded entitlement to a good chunk of their universities’ budgets typically translates into teaching and research in just five or six mainly European post/imperial languages.

As Japan grew into a major economic power in the last third of the 20th?century, Japanese began to be offered more widely. Likewise for Chinese in the early 2010s. And the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya generated a boom in Arabic and Persian (Farsi) language and culture studies. But Arabic and Japanese are also post/imperial languages, while Chinese and Persian are unabashedly imperial.

True, like French, Spanish, Russian and Portuguese, they are widely spoken. But so are Hindi, Bengali, Swahili and Hausa. Yet these are only offered within specialist area studies programmes, not as default options in modern languages departments.

And this situation endures in a world where information is regularly published in , with . Yes, most internet applications are still heavily skewed in favour of Eurasian idioms, but are gradually appearing. There are Wikipedias in , Google Translate , while Duolingo offers its .

A wider variety of languages are also being used for official state business. While Latin was the sole language of administration, education and book production across most of Europe until the 17th?century, the for official business.

In short, by refusing to embrace this multilingual digital reality, modern languages departments – consciously or not – serve to justify and preserve cultural (linguistic) imperialism.

They are also making themselves irrelevant. Researching European politics through the lens of even a couple of languages is methodologically fraught to say the least. The same is true of research on such a polyglot country like India. And as Africa’s exploding and power it on to the global scene, no one will be able to do business successfully there without some facility in its relevant languages.

Some readers will instantly respond: “But offering more languages would be way too expensive – especially now! Offering 50 languages would require 50 lectors and a fivefold increase in the department’s budget. Expand that to the 600 languages into which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was translated and you would not only bankrupt the department but possibly the whole university!”

But that is to maintain outmoded thinking about what a modern languages department should be. I believe they should recast themselves primarily as brokers, serving the linguistic needs of staff and students in other departments. As such, they need not directly employ many staff at all.

Researching printed sources usually only requires a basic understanding of the language in question, for instance. Indeed, even professional book translators may not be fluent speakers (as opposed to readers) of the language they work with. Few students or researchers really need or want to acquire a tongue to near-native fluency in all its aspects.

Each year (or even each semester), modern languages departments should establish students’ and researchers’ specific language needs and then contract appropriate services. Some of these could be from language agencies, whose specialists are used to being paid by the hour. Most of it could be delivered online from abroad, where salary demands are likely to be lower. But it could also be contracted from immigrant communities, some of whose members may be doing menial jobs but are trained educators and very knowledgeable about their home and ethnic languages.

Close cooperation is also needed with IT departments (which already amount to brokering agencies, providing services and skills for students and staff in other departments). We must face the fact that during the past decade machine translation has improved considerably, even on the hallowed grounds of literary translation. This service, coupled with GPT-style AI solutions, powers instantaneous translation of and websites – including those of prestigious newspapers such as , and .

Students need to learn how to use technology to deal with multilingual material. No one will ever acquire more than five to 10 languages for reading purposes. But if the material at hand is in 40 unrelated languages than machine translation is the only sensible option.

Technology also underpins the Kremlin’s highly polyglot anti-Western and . These should be closely watched and researched by universities, particularly given that Russia may soon a Nato nation. Graduates of such programmes would be highly attractive to intelligence agencies, which often have to rely currently on naturalised immigrants, whose loyalty .

Learning a language is really a matter of training your neuromuscular memory, like learning to ride a bike. And as a 2023 article in THE pointed out, this will “only take you so far in appreciating the intricacy with which people living in different parts of the globe make sense of the realities that they inhabit”. But so will learning one or two European languages. And other departments can train students in critical thinking and other “higher-order abilities” – although nothing stops a university from having a specialised department of translation studies or of Scandinavian culture and history.

Modern languages must adapt – both to universities’ financial realities and to wider society’s technologically turbocharged future. If they don’t, the closures will just keep on coming, and deservedly so.

is reader in the School of History at the University of St Andrews.

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.
<榴莲视频 class="pane-title"> Reader's comments (14)
It is not a case ONE vs. the OTHER. This is not only a misunderstanding of how languageS, plural, are learned differently by different people. Ignore the critical interrelations among languages and linguistic clusters. Why?
A curious piece here, shoehorning in lots of times and ideas. It starts with the decrying of imperialism. It then moves on to a hugely market focused transactional model of provision. It then brings in the new shiny AI world of immediate translation, and by extension, interpretation of meaning. We can apply this view across the whole smorgasbord of disciplines until we argue the sector of existence.
This piece is astonishing in the most negative way; the assumptions it makes about the imperial nature of a discipline that has been at the forefront of decolonising initiatives, is not a good reflection on the author's insights into the field, and unfortunately, on their institution. Let's hope the latter intervenes to distance themselves from this.
Looks like someone who is a bit miffed he's not been appointed to a Chair in his home department if you ask me. More of a research 'broker' than a researcher.
We write as Professors of Modern Languages at St Andrews (Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Italian, Persian, Russian, Spanish) to distance ourselves completely from the comments made by our colleague in History. As scholars and teachers of informed transnational studies, we also write in full support of our Modern Languages colleagues in the UK and beyond who are currently confronting the same ill-informed arguments. Professors Mary Orr and Nicki Hitchcott (on behalf of our Modern Languages colleagues).
This poorly argued, ill-informed and pathetically researched essay seems to assume that Modern Language departments exist only to teach language proficiency to students, rather than, say, engage in any number of diverse scholarly or intellectual activities in research, teaching and so much else. It would be like assuming, in the Anglophone context, that English departments exist only to teach English as a second language. Such ignorance wouldn't be surprising in a university administrator with no background in the arts and humanities. That it would be displayed by a historian is perhaps the only interesting (if tragic) thing to note about this essay.
As a former history student at St Andrews, who had the benefit of completing courses in Modern Languages at the same time, I’m surprised at this wholly negative article from a current academic, especially when (based on the comment above from the modem languages school at St Andrews) it seems quite a targeted piece. Surely we could apply the same logic that St Andrews doesn’t need ancient, medieval and modern history and could just teach current events to modernise them? It’s also frankly a real shame to see an academic so dismissively pushing for things like Duolingo (which is using generative AI now) over a real collaborative learning experience Dr Kamusella also appears to not fully grasp something about university education, which seems surprising for someone with as long a career as he has. Some people are just for fun and their own enjoyment, and are looking forward (for example) to going to France and being able to easily make their way.
Kamusella's approach blatantly ignores the essential role of language (learning) in social justice, decolonization, and access to equitable involvement in global conversations. The result would be an elite class of English-speaking academics outsourcing "language services" while losing the ability to critically engage with non-Anglophone sources on their own terms.
Interesting article from an academic in European History. I recently did some fieldwork in Armenia - I wish my basic Russian skills would have helped me to understand complex governmental reports. Incredible to argue as a historian that one only needs a basic understanding of the target language when reading papers while simultaneously accusing MFL departments of colonial attitudes. I recently spent some time in Pakistan and thanks to UCL's language centre I was able to do a course in Urdu. I'm sure MFL departments would love to offer Urdu (funny that the author only mentions Hindi) but simply cannot do it as 'demand' determines which languages are offered in the neoliberal university. The author seems to have no knowledge about the very many language centres, open for the general public, were closed in the last decade, which often had a wide-ranging language offer. Let's hope that our Lithuanian colleagues will take note of this unpleasant article from a Polish colleague and will dismiss the Polish language as an imperial language in the future.
Mass redundancies, casualisation, technophilia, return to first principles. Really? I think somebody got there before you Dr KaMUSella!!!
How would AI render ‘vergüenza ajena,’ Dr. Kamusella? Because that’s precisely what I experienced while reading that poorly substantiated op-ed.
The true purpose of this article does not seem to be merely arguing that "modern language departments are outdated and need reform", but rather justifying "university budget cuts and staff reductions". While the author presents the idea of outsourcing language education as a seemingly rational solution, in reality, it undermines the essence of academia and significantly compromises the quality of education. What is even more interesting is to apply this "broker" model to the author's own field, "history", and consider the implications. Like language education, history is a discipline that deals with vast amounts of information and has been influenced by advancements in digital technology. However, what would happen if we were to extend the argument that "specialized historical knowledge can simply be outsourced to brokers"? Language education is not merely about collecting past data; it is about interpreting, critically analyzing, reconstructing, and articulating knowledge from a contemporary or personal perspective. If information is simply provided by external brokers, the crucial question, "Who is interpreting the language, and from what perspective or context?", is entirely overlooked. Now, let’s apply this logic to history. If history were treated simply as a collection of past data, and if the notion that "historical expertise can be outsourced to brokers" became widely accepted, students would lose the opportunity to conduct their own research and analyze primary sources. Just as in language education, the essence of history lies in "reading sources for oneself and developing new interpretations". This cannot be achieved through mere information brokering. If the author advocates for reforming modern language departments in this way, then they should also apply the same logic to their own discipline and examine the consequences. By doing so, it will become even clearer how dangerous it is to reduce academia to mere information provision.
This piece reflects the kind of disciplinary imperialistic thinking those of us who specialise in areas outside of the English-speaking world are sadly all too used to. As a trained anthropologist and historian, who just happens to read Japanese and Chinese, I am repeatedly referred to as a language specialist and asked to complete translation tasks for colleagues in 'canonical' departments such as history. At the same time, management and programme structures from above erase my disciplinary work. What Dr Kamusella proposes is explicitly extractive, disrespectful and also misunderstands what most staff in Modern languages and area studies schools do. Our decision to teach languages is methodological, and a necessary price you pay in order to interpret primary materials from other contexts in a meaningful way. Encouraging disciplinary scholars to 'outsource' the 'bothersome' task for understanding non-English materials is a lazy contemporary reproduction of an old kind of colonial scholarship.
Well I think those comments have sent Kamusella off with a flea in his ear! He'll think twice before imposing his half-baked, egregiously simplistic, opportunistic nonsense on the rest of us in future!
ADVERTISEMENT