To further comment on YH’s reply: ineed, depending on the breadth of the region, linguistic proficiency may by unrealistic. But I would still say that if the region was colonized at some point in the past by several colonial powers, you might want to be proficient in one or more of those languages since there will be a lot of literature in the colonizing country that you need to know about; there will be migrants from the colonized country to ex-colonizer that have opinions in newspapers, etc. So if you are studying West Africa, you had better know French. If you are studying the ex-soviet Central Asian republics, you should know Russian in addition to the local languages. England did a lot of colonizing, lucky for us we know English already.

So yes, you want analytical skill, but that skill would be hampered if you cannot access the literature that is not in your own language if that is the only one you can read. Also, you want to be able to meet people as a student of regional studies, and not only those who had an expensive education and speak English.

Finally you want insight into the mentality even at a regional level, and mentality and language go hand-in-hand.

The percentage of people speaking English (not writing) is increasing. Does it mean they understand the Language.
“ËœRegional’ means a lake, a fence, chickens and eggs and other animals? Prove me wrong.
What is expertise?
I “Ëœhalf disagree ‘ (Curzons’s words?). Please check “ËœLooping the Loop’ in the Sept. 30th
Issue of the Economist. (Science and technology)
I do not have to agree with half. of the statement
The language is “Ëœa changing’.
I tend to think the logic is changing as well!
Godel was half right!!
????
Please do not take it to heart. These are only words.

“KB, I fail to see how anyone could allege that Noah Chomsky is anti-american based upon anything he has ever written within the narrow field of linguistics”

Yes, they couldn’t allege this based upon his linguistics work. And they could only allege this based on his political writings if they haven’t understood them.kb

“a field in which he is widely acknowledged to have made some contributions.”

Yes. Quite a few I’d say.kb

“However, once Chomsky leaves his field of academic expertise and steps over into political punditry, he is fair game.”

Here goes the non-argument which one often hears from those unfamiliar with his work, too. It’s the “Why doesn’t stick to his linguistics” argument, and its rubbish. He’s rarely to never asked what his qualifications are when asked to speak at economics, mathematics, political science, or any of the other number of departments he’s often asked to speak at. As he says, they’re not interested in the letters behind his name, but in his arguments. The notion that he must have a PhD. in order to be knowledgeable about some discipline in nonsense and irrelevant.kb

“And whether or not he is “anti-american”Â? will often depend upon the political biases of the reader.”

I agree 100%. And the reader whose bias leads to his interpreting his writings as being anti-American are simply wrong. They should learn to read, or ask someone who is familiar with the topic.kb

I guess I disagree with your main argument here. To borrow from my comments on Occidentalism.org which has linked to this post:

While knowing the language is definately a huge advantage I don’t believe it is necessary to being an “expert”Â? because there are ways around it when doing academic research without losing one’s expertise. One way a lot of scholars get around the language problem is by partnering up with someone who is fluent in the language and sharing responsibility of the research.

If you read a lot of academic journals, especially regarding China, it is not at all uncommon to see that one of the authors is fluent in Mandarin and that one of the responsibilities of that person is to do the field work for example (ie. interviewing and stuff) while the other author(s) will analyze the data and contribute in other ways without compromising their “expertise”Â? in the project. Their lack of Mandarin does not at all diminish or disregard their knowledge on the topic at hand. (And if it’s good enough to be published in an academic journal, it’s gonna be a hard case to prove they aren’t “experts”Â? per se.)

For example, there are a lot of scholars out there who are not fluent in Mandarin but would very much qualify as experts in the field of Chinese economic development due to experiences in China, joint research with Mandarin-speaking partners, and just reading the massive amounts written in English about the topic.

I would think that knowing English is probably more advantageous than you give it credit for because a lot of stuff is written or translated into English.

I am not, however, disregarding the value of knowing another language and the advantages it brings a person. I do not, howver, think it is a qualification one needs in order to analyze a culture or society intellectually or to be considered an “expert”Â? in the field. Experts not fluent in the language of a certain society do have alternatives such as a wide network of connections to folks who can speak the langauge and co-work with them on a project.

Also, as I said before, knowing English is also a huge advantage for the linguistically untrained. There are so many things written and translated into English that it perhaps has retarded English speakers’ progress in learning a foreign langauge (which is unfortunate).

He is an expert, speaks the language,uses original source material, and then writes in English. He’s also a good teacher. Why would you dismiss his work simply because it is written in English?

I don’t think anyone is dismissing the work of said Dr. Yamashita, but saying that there are so few Dr. Yamashita’s in this world and rather then waiting for a Dr. Yamashita to either re-conduct research in English, or to present information in English, it would be faster (perhaps more accurate because translations never work perfectly) if a ‘Japan expert’ was able to just read the original Japanese work. Not to say this Dr. Yamashita isn’t doing lots of work, but it’s not possible for one may to do more work then every Japanese person to have ever lived combined. There is just so much more information available in about a country if you speak that countries language. But the question is is it necessary to speak the language, not is something written in English not as important as something written in another language.

For example, I would argue that it is impossible to be a genuine expert in the literature of a country without being able to appreciate said literature in the language in which it was written. But as others have said, one can get by as a policy analyst if that person has a staff/network of contacts to rely on to gather and translate materials- as long as the analyst is genuinely good at analysis.

If someone is, let’s say, an expert on the military then it really isn’t important whether they know Chinese to analyze China’s military, as long as they are getting good reports.

On the other hand, someone in something like sociology or media studies who can’t do first hand research in the original language is probably fairly worthless.

He is an expert, speaks the language,uses original source material, and then writes in English. He’s also a good teacher. Why would you dismiss his work simply because it is written in English?

Learning a language takes a load of time and effort, and to get that along with expertise in politics, geography, and whatever else a regional expert is supposed to know… ain’t easy. Of the relatively small number of people who are actually bilingual in English and Japanese, I’d say that very, very few could qualify as a regional expert of Japan or of any English-speaking country. And Japanese is a widely-studied language compared to Uzbek or Yoruba or Tagalog.

I suppose this is why many people settle for the knowledge alone, and give up on their “experts” having practical language ability.

However if you can become fluent in all the regional languages, you can cut out the middle man, reduce ‘costs’ ie margin of error, making the language skills a definite plus, but not a rock hard requirement.

I do think that language is required to understand the richness of the local culture.

I was in Brazil three years back and learning prtuguese’, changes the way one hears and then the accent gives you a new persona or at least a chance at ?

i think language is essential but not neccessary. One can grunt and growl ones way through. But. it is educational, at best.

Being a vegetarian, i needed to know the words for beans and rice.. Black beans for sure!

As i walked up to the table the waitress would say the words and i would just nod my head. The cave was comfy.

” *George Bush said that the US is fighting “Islamic fascism”. When this term gets translated, in Arabic it will mean “el Islam el fashi”, or “fascist Islam” or “Islam the fascist”. A huge difference between both terms. “

A certain subset of US “experts” on Islam (mostly just ill-informed though well meaning pundits), loves to espouse the notion of Islamo-fascism. Obviously, they have little to zero experience with any form of Arabic language – a MUST if one can even begin to speak with any authority on Islam. On the flip side, as you point out, linguistic proficiency does not make one an expert as Juan Cole often makes so embarrasingly clear.