Saturday, October 17, 2009

one man's syntactical error is another's literary revolution ...(i like this)

Second-language authors

by Anthony Gardner

In 1878, a 21-year-old Polish seaman came ashore at Lowestoft in Suffolk. His name was Józef Teodor Konrad Korzienowski, and he spoke only a few words of English. Yet within ten years he was ready to start work on Almayer's Folly, the first of the novels which would make him - as Joseph Conrad - one of the most respected writers in the language.

Józef Teodor Konrad KorzienowskiFor those who have struggled to master another tongue - or, indeed, to express themselves in their own - this seems a phenomenal achievement, demanding enormous effort and willpower. (All the more so since English was actually Conrad's third language, after French.) But according to Conrad's autobiography A Personal Record, his ability to write in English was 'as natural as any other aptitude with which I might have been born. I have a strange and overpowering feeling that it had always been an inherent part of myself.' Rather than choosing English, he continues, 'it was I who was adopted by the genius of the language…if I had not written in English, I would not have written at all.'

Conrad is not the only eminent author to have written in a borrowed tongue: other notable examples include Samuel Beckett, Vladmir Nabokov and Andrei Makine; but he is unusual in denying that it was a deliberate choice. For most, adopting another language is a conscious response to the possibilities it offers as a means of expression, and a way of redefining their relationship with their own country. Sybille Bedford, born into a partly Jewish family in Berlin and given a cosmopolitan upbringing, settled in England and embraced English - according to her book Jigsaw - 'as a rope to save me from drifting awash in the fluidities of multi-lingualism that surround me'. Samuel Beckett chose to write in French, he said, 'Parce qu'en français il est plus facile d'écrire sans style', but also (the critic Brian T. Fisher argues in his study Beckett and Babel) 'to put as much distance as possible between himself and his native land in general and his mother in particular'.

For Beckett's fellow Irishman Oscar Wilde, the writing of Salomé in French seems to have been a bid both to reinvent himself and to obtain wider recognition. 'Oscar told us he was writing a play in French to be acted at the Français,' Wilfred Blunt recorded in his diary on 27th October 1891. 'He is ambitious of becoming a French academician.' One of Wilde's biographers, Barbara Bedford, argues that he was keen to make Paris 'his second city now that Dublin was in the past', and another - Richard Ellman - that he dreamed of beating Mallarmé on his own ground.

In other cases, the decision to switch languages is purely pragmatic. Asked recently why he chose to write in French, Andrei Makine, the Russian writer who astonished the literary Establishment by winning the Prix Goncourt, replied simply, 'I live and publish in France: the choice of writing in French is therefore quite logical.' Vladmir Nabokov turned his back on Russian when it became clear that there was no prospect of his finding a sympathetic audience in his homeland under Communism, though it took him some time to settle on an alternative. 'I could have been a great French writer,' he once declared - but while his command of that language was excellent, he felt uncomfortable in Parisian literary circles, and came down in favour of English instead.

Hugo Tucker, Professor of French Studies at Reading University, identifies writing in another language as 'one of the topoi of exile', and offers as an early example the fifteenth-century French poet Charles, Duc d'Orléans, who spent 25 years as a prisoner in England after the Battle of Agincourt, and has a large number of English poems attributed to him. But, Tucker points out, there have also been many societies in which it was de rigueur for anyone with literary ambitions to acquire a second, more refined language in addition to the local vernacular: 'Spinoza [who was Dutch] had to write his Tractatus in Latin, otherwise no one would have understood him; and parts of War and Peace are written in French, because that was the language spoken by educated Russians.'

'Once you step out of monolingual innocence, it begins to affect the way you express yourself in your own language. Mallarmé was an English teacher, and some of his syntactical structure is very odd; while Hölderlin in Germany studied the classics and derived some of his word order from Pindar. A second language can also contaminate your vocabulary.' Conrad went so far as to claim that English 'had a direct action' on his temperament and helped to mould his character.

Curiously, however, when speaking English Conrad never lost his Polish accent (indeed, according to his wife, it became stronger as he grew older); and the question remains as to how far a writer can assimilate a language other than his or her own. The critic A.C. Ward observed of Conrad that 'he never wrote quite as a born Englishman' (though, he added, 'he wrote the language incomparably better than most educated Englishmen do'); while the French poet Adolphe Retté, who was asked by Wilde for his comments on the manuscript of Salomé, claimed that his main task was to remove 'les anglicismes trop formels'.

But lack of complete familiarity with a language can have its advantages. In an essay on Beckett, Harry Cockerham writes that 'What seems to attract him to French is the very fact that it is less second nature to him than is English, that his relationship to it is different and makes him more able to manipulate it consciously…One is constantly aware of Beckett…as a student of the French language, and thence of language itself.' As a result, he argues, the playwright was able to bring a new naturalism to French theatre.

Contemporary authors trying to get to grips with a new language should take heart. You will inevitably make mistakes, but don't be deterred - one man's syntactical error is another's literary revolution.

© Anthony Gardner. All views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to the European Commission.


source: http://www.europe.org.uk/index/-/id/219/

Friday, October 16, 2009

I do hope the public and the policy makers understand .....

ARKIB : 13/10/2009

Bencana penarafan universiti?

TANGGAL 8 Oktober 2009, apabila keputusan penarafan THES-QS diumumkan, saya sedang berada di bandar Giessen, lebih kurang satu jam dari Frankfurt, untuk memenuhi undangan Persatuan Universiti-universiti Eropah (EUA) yang menjadi penaung utama semua universiti di benua tersebut.

Undangan ini sempena persidangan bertajuk "Pengantarabangsaan melewati sempadan Eropah" dan saya diminta memberi pandangan dari sudut luar Eropah sebagai seorang antara dua pengucaptama - seorang lagi adalah rakan Rektor, Berlin Free University, salah satu universiti tertua dan ternama di Jerman, malah Eropah.

Dewasa ini, e-mel bertalu-talu tiba mengesahkan "bencana" yang menimpa Malaysia. Jika Indonesia dengan gempa buminya, Filipina dengan banjir dan tanah runtuhnya, Samoa dengan tsunaminya dan Jepun banjirnya, bagi Malaysia pula menghadapai bencana gara-gara penarafan IPTAnya. Walaupun hanya beberapa buah IPTA sahaja yang terlibat, kesannya tidak kurang menggugat.

Media gamat dengan liputan berita tersebut. Anehnya hanya yang tersenarai sahaja yang dipertikaikan, sedangkan puluhan yang lain yang tidak langsung tersenarai (termasuk IPTS yang saban diiklan sebagai paling 'global' di akhbar-akhbar) nampaknya terselamat daripada bencana tersebut. Seolah-olah membayangkan lebih baik tidak tersenarai sama sekali daripada tersenarai.

Ini sahaja sudah cukup mengelirukan tentang apa cita rasa yang ingin diluahkan dalam hal ini? Kita belum lagi membincangkan tentang "cita rasa" penganjur THES-QS apabila beria-ia mendakwa penarafannya adalah tepat, bebas dan boleh dipercayai tanpa sebarang ragu-ragu lagi! Walaupun ada bukti sebaliknya! Apa pun kita mengangguk saja.

Sebagai perbandingan suasana di Giessen sewaktu persidangan tersebut cukup aman, biar ratusan rektor universiti Eropah dan benua lain, bersama dengan pegawai tertinggi universiti serta pelajar bersesak-sesak di dewan seminar Justus Liebig Universitat Giessen - sebuah IPTA berusia lebih 400 tahun.

Bandar Giessen merupakan bandar universiti dengan hampir 40 peratus penduduknya terdiri daripada warga universiti tersebut. Universitinya moden disulami tradisi ilmiah dan kesarjanaan yang kental.

Universiti itu juga tidak kurang mempunyai pusat kecemerlangan tersendiri di bawah Inisiatif Kecemerlangan Jerman yang dicontohi Malaysia di bawah Inisiatif APEX. Jelas, Justus Liebig Universitat cukup yakin dengan pencapaian dan jati dirinya.

Penarafan, lebih-lebih lagi oleh sebuah organisasi bertujuan komersial, tidak langsung dihiraukan. Mereka tidak juga apologetic - malah kalaupun ada pengajaran daripada aktiviti penarafan, ia dianggap tidak sesuai untuk dijadikan pengukur institusi pendidikan.

Sebaliknya sesebuah universiti itu mempunyai keperibadiannya tersendiri; wawasan serta keunikannya - selaras dengan kefahaman "pendidikan" (bukan sahaja pelajaran atau kajian) yang memegang amanah ilmu dan kesarjanaan.

Kepelbagaian adalah kekayaannya, dan lagi unik adunan kepelbagaian tersebut - lagi terbina keperibadian universiti berkenaan. Ia bukan kilang yang mengeluarkan barangan tidak bernyawa yang seragam dan diseragamkan supaya mudah dibanding-bandingkan untuk tujuan tertentu.

Ia bukannya seperti peraduan ratu cantik yang menaraf pemenangnya berpandukan formula utama 36-24-36 sebagai yang "ideal" dan semuanya dinilai mengikut sukatan ini; kemudian diberi penarafan 1, 2, 3 dan sebagainya. Wajarkah dua insan dibandingkan berdasarkan aspek luarannya sahaja dan bukan sifat keinsanannya?

Begitu juga hal dengan institusi bergelar "universiti" - lebih-lebih ukuran yang dikenakan lebih mirip kepada bahan perkilangan atau untuk peraduan ratu cantik, atau sebaliknya! Pokoknya asas dan pandangan dunia dan amanah sebuah universiti tulen tidak sama dengan pandangan dunia dan amanah sebuah organisasi bukan pendidikan. Namun inilah yang sering kali dicampuradukkan sehingga memusnahkan sama sekali maksud sesebuah universiti di mata ramai di samping mengusutkan lagi keadaan.

Yang turut mengkagumkan adalah rektor-rektor universiti Eropah yang menghadiri persidangan itu amat jelas tentang tanggungjawab mereka dalam membangunkan sebuah universiti. Autonomi berulang-ulang kali disebut untuk menyatakan kelainan sebuah universiti dengan organisasi lain, terutama yang berbentuk komersial, dan wujud untuk mengaut keuntungan.

Autonomi bagi mereka adalah benteng utama yang perlu dipertahankan dalam mengasuh dan mengangkat maruah sebagai sebuah institusi pendidikan tinggi. Disini mereka tidak berkompromi sama sekali dan enggan dijadi seolah-olah kerbau dicucuk hidung, diarak-arak atau diarah-arah ke hulu dan ke hilir seadanya saja.

Saya mengandaikan yang persidangan tersebut akan gegak gempita membahaskan soal penarafan apabila dilihat dari perspektif pengantarabangsaan. Saya mengagakkan keputusan THES-QS dijadikan tanda aras mutlak, dan turut menimbulkan "bencana" di Giessen seperti mana di tanah air.

Ternyata saya tersilap sama sekali. Selama dua hari berikutnya isu penarafan tidak sekalipun disebutkan baik oleh para penceramah mahupun peserta. Apabila cuba dicukil pendapat mereka, rata-rata maklum balasnya cukup dingin - kalau dalam bahasa Inggerisnya berbunyi "what about it?" (apa halnya?).

Dan bila dikatakan keputusan THES-QS sudah diumum, kelihatan mereka amat sinis dan jelek sekali, bagaikan menegur: "Siapa mereka ini untuk menjadikan universiti kami bak kerbau cucuk hidung?"

Umum tidak kisah langsung tentang isu tersebut kerana angka-angka penarafan bagi mereka tidak membawa erti apa-apa, kalaupun konsep penarafan boleh diterima. Malah seorang ada bertanya: "Bolehkah saya menaraf lima orang anak saya secara adil dan saksama? Apa lagi berbanding dengan anak orang lain?"

Natijahnya, dalam penarafan kita mesti ikut telunjuk orang lain yang mengadun segala-galanya. Umpama ratu cantik, kita juga perlu memperagakan diri, baik berbikini sekalipun, berlenggang lengguk, tersenyum tersipu-sipu untuk menawan pengadil dengan harapan untuk menjadi ratu!

Jika tidak agak sukar membayangkan apa-apa kejayaan. Apatah lagi turut diperhatikan dalam peraduan seumpama ini calon tuan rumah sering kali akan "menang" sesuatu kalaupun tidak hadiah pertama. Hal ini juga beransur lumrah dalam aktiviti penarafan di mana unsur-unsur penajaan dan sogokan (bagi sesetengah pihak dikatakan "rasuah") sudah mula menular.

Maka pernah universiti disyor mengiklankan nama dan logonya di laman web penaja dengan bayaran sekian banyak supaya lebih "mesra pelanggan" dan "mudah diperkenalkan" dan melonjakkan kedudukan. Malangnya tidak kurang juga yang terjebak dengan "tawaran" tersebut, umpama si ratu cantik meniduri pengadil, dengan harapan agar menang jua. Tidak kiralah jika maruah turut tergadai.

Banyak lagi yang boleh dipersoalkan berkaitan aspek etika dan keutuhan (sama ada cara langsung atau tidak), sekali gus membuka tembelang usaha penarafan khususnya yang berbentuk komersial. Cukup banyak telah ditulis tentang hal ini supaya jangan terperangkap sebagai Pak Turut saja!

Maka di Giessen saya menghela nafas lega! Lebih daripada itu, saya bertambah yakin yang universiti sememang ada maruah dan nilai sendiri dalam kelangsungan menunaikan tanggungjawab serta amanah tanpa diganggu-gugat oleh sesiapa pun, apa lagi yang berkepentingan cukup sempit dan anti cendekiawan! Ataupun mencari sanjungan pintas.

Saya juga belajar yang maruah ini ada kaitannya dengan nilai keluhuran dan kejujuran berilmu dan bersarjana, sesuatu yang tak dapat ditolak ansur dalam apa hal sekalipun; jangan sebutlah memperjudikan etika!

Akhir sekali saya sedar kita tidak perlu apologetic sekiranya jati diri ingin diperkasa. Rupa-rupanya universiti yang istimewa itu adalah universiti yang mengerti semua ini dan terus mempertahankan prinsip keilmuan biar "bencana" apa sekali yang mendatang. Bak kata orang tua-tua: Membujur lalu, melintang patah! Pantang maut, sebelum ajal.

PROF. TAN SRI DZULKIFLI ABDUL RAZAK ialah Naib Canselor Universiti Sains Malaysia


http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2009&dt=1013&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Rencana&pg=re_01.htm

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

university ranking - what do you think?????

Tuesday October 13, 2009

UM must play global ranking game all the way


CONGRATULATIONS to Universiti Malaya for being in the top 200 of the THES ranking.

UM has the right combination of strategies to be in the ranking: get the maximum out of the academic staff in terms of publications, aggressive recruitment of foreign staff, and fund international research students, and this will encourage more to undertake research at UM.

Once UM is in this global ranking game, the university must play the game all the way. Lets have more recruitment of foreign staff in 2010 and more money for foreign research students.

In time of difficult economic circumstances in Malaysia, and as a public university, UM has to have adequate resources to play the game full-time in 2010 and beyond.

As has been stated by many observers, if a university’s global ranking is not in the top 50, anything could happen in 2010 or beyond as ranking within the top 50 bracket is very volatile.

Thus UM has to spend more money to sustain or increase the number of foreign staff and international research students. I am sure, with its land bank and private medical wing, the UM has the resources to continue to be in the game.

For USM or other new universities in the peripheral regions, involvement in global ranking may not be a sustainable way to develop Malaysia’s higher education in terms of access, regional equity and sustainability.

If UM and UKM or UTM want to be in the global ranking game and get entangled in this business-driven activity then all the best to them. Every university has its own vision and mission and the public must understand and respect what their have set for themselves.

It would be great for Malaysia’s higher education if we have universities in the global rankings. In the same breathe, we must also salute other universities wanting to change the mindset of Malaysians, who are more concerned about the development of local knowledge and eager to lead the way in terms of their engagement with global and local communities with a view to improve the well-beings of the “bottom billions”.

Admittedly, while these criteria are not counted by global rankings, they are very important to nation-building and international development effort.

PROF MORSHIDI SIRAT,

Director, National Higher Education Research Institute (IPPTN) Malaysia.