Von der Pluralität der Wissenschaftssprachen und der Arbeit der Geisteswissenschaften

In: Paragrana: internationale Zeitschrift für historische Anthropologie, Band 24, Heft 2, S. 149-160

Abstract

Abstract
When science, regardless of the type, is dependent on language, it is essential that it repeatedly provides assurance in its language. Scientific languages do precisely this. From a scientific perspective, it is usually argued that English has truly proven itself as a universal language. However, no mention is made of the fact that English in these cases only means a communicative obligation, and not an epistemic obligation. For example, physicists are no longer able to portray physical thinking without the range of mathematical means at their disposal. In contrast, for humanists language embodies historical or philosophical thinking, and this means that it cannot be randomly substituted. On this basis I argue in favor of a multilingualism of the humanities, which is not restricted to a single lingua franca, but which is deemed suitable for the diversity of the means of perception and ways of thinking.