Passage Three
　　Directions: Read the following passage and answer these questions as briefly as possible
　　1. What is the author’s attitude towards translation of scientific literature? (5points)
　　2. What is the best way to overcome language barriers in the author’s opinion? (5points)
　　3.What is the implication of using a common language? (5 points)
　　4.. Write a concise summary based on the text “The Language of science”. (10points

　　The Language of Science
　　The progress of science depends upon many factors, and not least among these is the existence of satisfactory arrangements for the rapid exchange of the news and experimental results between research workers having similar interests. In a branch of learning that prides itself particularly upon its powers of systematization it is surprising that in this respect so much has been left to chance and so little has been done to formulate and follow an agreed policy appropriate to modern needs. There is, of course, no lack of scientific literature, both books and journals: the ‘World list of Scientific Periodicals’ now lists some 50,000 titles. Indeed, almost every scientist now finds it impossible to read all the work relevant to his own subject, far less to read extensively outside it. Yet wide reading is becoming increasingly important, for it is very frequently in the fields where several branches of science overlap that the most exciting results are obtained.
　　While this problem of the sheer quality of literature is a serious one, it is at least one to which some effective answers have been found and applied. Most important, of course, are the various abstracting services, the value of whose work needs no emphasis here. Moreover, the large number of scientific periodicals is not wholly a badly thing: the less important ones serve to some extent as a filter, though by no means a completely efficient one, that reserve　work of proved importance for journals of wider circulation and higher standing.
The no less important question of the language in which scientific work should be presented remains, however, largely unsolved. It is, like so many others in the modern world, one on which it is generally agreed that an international policy is urgently necessary but on which it is in fact difficult to get any agreement at all. Clearly, the problem is one which no amount of good will and harmonious agreement can quickly solve; this is an additional reason for deciding upon the ultimate goal and trying to agree upon a policy by which it may be achieved. In the meantime the barrier of language keeps many scientists in prolonged ignorance of work of immediate importance to them being done in many countries. With the rapid expansion of scientific research in countries whose contribution has hitherto been relatively small the problem is rapidly becoming more serious.
　　The general facts of the situation are easily ascertained and occasion no controversy. It is established, for example, that much of the world’s scientific literature is published in a language unintelligible to more than half the world’s scientists. The distributions of journals according to language show a wide variety. Roughly speaking, some 44 per cent of scientific journals are published in English, 14 per cent in German, 13 per cent in French, 8 per cent in Russian, 5 per cent in Spanish, 4 per cent in Italian, and the remainder in the other languages of the world. Such figures cannot be exact, and they vary from one branch of science and technology to another, but they certainly indicate the general situation. Moreover, these proportions can be expected to change fairly rapidly. Unless some major of policy occurs, the proportion of papers appearing in the Russian language is bound to rise rapidly. There is every reason to expect that the scientific literature of China will grow rapidly, and it is likely that, if only for political reasons, much of this will be published in Chinese, with Russian the second choice. It is possible that Hindi and other language at present unfamiliar to the western world may in time become important scientific languages. In the absence of positive action the situation is bound to become steadily more complicated and difficult to resolve.
　　Supposing—and in present circumstance it is a supposition requirement a good deal of optimism—that international agreement could be obtained to mitigate these difficulties, what is the proper policy to pursue? Three principal courses are clearly open to us, presuming that the present one of laissez-faire is rejected. Firstly, we might aim at the ideal of a single language for the communication of all scientific work. Secondly, a limited number of languages, selected from those already most widely used for scientific purposes, might be selected. Thirdly, more extensive use could be made of professionally prepared translations.
In considering these general propels it is necessary to consider both short-term and long-term policy. To satisfy immediate needs, taking the situation as it is and not as one might wish it to be, the extension of translations between languages is the only possible policy. This has, of course, been recognized by Endeavour since its inception in 1942: at the present time we look upon our foreign-language editions as indispensable to our object of providing an internationally useful review of the progress of science. The recent great expansion of professional interlingual scientific translation is evident that this view is generally accepted. Much of this expansion has, of course, been occasioned by the relatively sudden efflorescence of science in Russian, which has introduced a novel factor into the situation. 　　　　　Here we have a sudden and unprecedented flow of important scientific work in a language with which the scientific world in general is not merely unfamiliar but totally ignorant. In the circumstances no choice is open to the West: for the moment the work must be followed through translations or not at all. It should be remarked that this situation apparently does not exist in reverse.At least fifty per cent of Russian scientists and technologists are reputed to be able to read English, French or German, and many are said to know more than one of these languages.
　　Indispensable though it is, there are obvious reasons against indefinite extensions of the translation system. It is wasteful of time, money, and scientific manpower; it causes delay; and it can lead to misunderstanding. So far as the last point is concerned, it is perhaps not generally realized how difficult it is to make really accurate translations of highly technical material. In fields developing rapidly, essential words may not even have been coined in certain languages, and only knowledgeable circumlocution can render the sense accurately. While an increase in translation service seems inevitable over the next few years, it is a process not without danger. It will lead to the evolution of an extensive and expensive organization whose very existence will be prejudicial to the adoption of alternative policies that may in the long run be more satisfactory.
　　A universal language for all scientific communication is obviously desirable on many grounds, but both its choice and its achievements are likely to be beset by great difficulties. The choice of any single language for the communication of results in so important a field would naturally be beset by all kinds of political and nationalistic obstacles. Many of these might be overcome if one adopted a non-living language such as Latin or an artificial language such as Esperanto or Interlingua. Artificial language s are open to the fundamental objection that their very nature and purpose make them unsuitable for conveying subtle shades of meaning: they are satisfactory enough for describing facts but inadequate for conveying ideas, especially unfamiliar ones. Latin is free from this defect, for in its long evolution it acquired considerable flexibility . Its evolution virtually stopped, however before modern science began. Its present vocabulary and syntax are therefore inappropriate for modern needs, as is well known to every university orator who has been called upon to describe in Latin the work of scientists. It is a great pity that Latin was allowed to lapse as the international language of scholars, but it is doubtful whether it is now feasible to revive it.
The choice of a single language would have the great and obvious advantage that nobody would be required to learn more than one language other than his own. The argument in its favor is further strengthened by the consideration that for the innovation to be effective it would be necessary for all scientists to be able not merely to read this language—a facility that could be acquired without great difficulty—but to write in it, which is very much more difficult. To learn to write well in even one language is for the ordinary person a considerable and time-consuming achievement.
　　A compromise, by which two or three modern languages only are accepted for universal use in science, seems more likely to achieve success, but even if a decision were taken today it could have effect only after many years. For this to be effective, it would be necessary to institute educational reforms in many countries, for real proficiencies in a foreign language is not easily acquired without formed study. These, even if achieved, could not bear fruit for a long time. The certainty of difficulty is, however, no argument for making no attempt to reach a generally acceptable policy. At least the teaching of languages is a feature of most national curricula, and it ought not ultimately to be impossible, when so much is at stake, to agree upon the substitution of one for another when necessary.
　　The barrier of the language is harmful in science, but it is, of course an equally serious obstacle in all fields of learning, in politics, in industry and commerce and in every kind of dealing between nations. It might well be that if scientists were to give a lead, others would follow. While it is manifestly not true that a common language ensures harmony between nations, it certainly promotes clearer understanding, and at the present time there is nothing more urgently necessary than this.