Abstract We present evidence that mainstream Anglophone philosophy is insular in the sense that participants in this academic tradition tend mostly to cite or interact with other participants in this academic tradition, while having little academic interaction with philosophers writing in other languages. Among our evidence: In a sample of articles from elite Anglophone philosophy journals, 97% of citations are citations of work originally written in English; 96% of members of editorial boards of elite Anglophone philosophy journals are housed in majority-Anglophone countries; and only one of the 100 most-cited recent authors in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy spent most of his career in non-Anglophone countries writing primarily in a language other than English. In contrast, philosophy articles published in elite Chinese-language and Spanish-language journals cite from a range of linguistic traditions, as do non-English-language articles in a convenience sample of established European-language journals. We also find evidence that work in English has more influence on work in other languages than vice versa and that when non-Anglophone philosophers cite recent work outside of their own linguistic tradition it tends to be work in English.

中文翻译：

---

英语哲学的孤立性：定量分析

摘要我们提供的证据表明，主流英语哲学是孤立的，因为这种学术传统的参与者大多倾向于引用或与这种学术传统的其他参与者互动，而与其他用其他语言写作的哲学家则很少进行学术互动。在我们的证据中：在来自精英英语哲学杂志的文章样本中，有97％的引用是对最初以英语撰写的作品的引用；精英英语哲学期刊的编辑委员会的96％成员位于多数英语国家/地区；《斯坦福大学哲学百科全书》最近被引用最多的100位作者中，只有一位在非英语国家/地区度过了他的大部分职业，主要用英语以外的其他语言写作。相反，精英中文和西班牙文期刊上发表的哲学文章都引用了多种语言传统，在方便使用的欧洲知名期刊中也引用了非英文文章。我们还发现有证据表明，用英语工作对其他语言的影响要大得多，反之亦然；当非英语系哲学家引用其本国语言传统以外的最新著作时，倾向于使用英语。