ArticlePDF Available

The dominance of English in the international scientific periodical literature and the future of language use in science

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Throughout the 20th century, international communication has shifted from a plural use of several languages to a clear pre-eminence of English, especially in the field of science. This paper focuses on international periodical publications where more than 75 percent of the articles in the social sciences and humanities and well over 90 percent in the natural sciences are written in English. The shift towards English implies that an increasing number of scientists whose mother tongue is not English have already moved to English for publication. Consequently, other international languages, namely French, German, Russian, Spanish and Japanese lose their attraction as languages of science. Many observers conclude that it has become inevitable to publish in English, even in English only. The central question is whether the actual hegemony of English will create a total monopoly, at least at an international level, or if changing global conditions and language policies may allow alternative solutions. The paper analyses how the conclusions of an inevitable monopoly of English are constructed, and what possible disadvantages such a process might entail. Finally, some perspectives of a new plurilingual approach in scientific production and communication are sketched.
Content may be subject to copyright.
is is a contribution from AILA Review 20
© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company
is electronic file may not be altered in any way.
e author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to
be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.
Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible
to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s institute.
For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the
publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com).
Please contact rights@benjamins.nl or consult our website: www.benjamins.com
Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com
John Benjamins Publishing Company
e dominance of English in the international
scientic periodical literature and the future
of language use in science
Rainer Enrique Hamel
Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, México, D. F.
roughout the 20th century, international communication has shied from a
plural use of several languages to a clear pre-eminence of English, especially in
the eld of science. is paper focuses on international periodical publications
where more than 75 percent of the articles in the social sciences and humani-
ties and well over 90 percent in the natural sciences are written in English. e
shi towards English implies that an increasing number of scientists whose
mother tongue is not English have already moved to English for publication.
Consequently, other international languages, namely French, German, Russian,
Spanish and Japanese lose their attraction as languages of science. Many observ-
ers conclude that it has become inevitable to publish in English, even in English
only. e central question is whether the actual hegemony of English will create
a total monopoly, at least at an international level, or if changing global condi-
tions and language policies may allow alternative solutions. e paper analyses
how the conclusions of an inevitable monopoly of English are constructed, and
what possible disadvantages such a process might entail. Finally, some perspec-
tives of a new plurilingual approach in scientic production and communication
are sketched.
. Introduction. What is at stake in the eld?
Even two or three decades ago, this article could have been published in this very jour-
nal, the AILA Review, in English or French, AILAs ocial languages, or even in Ger-
man or Russian, two languages that were then accepted as congress languages. When
AILA was founded and held its rst congress in 1964, it was formed overwhelmingly by
foreign language and translation experts and it promoted enrichment plurilingualism
which meant the daily bread for its members. Its acronym is indeed coined on its name
in French, Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée, the then leading lan-
guage of the association. ings have changed since, and, at least from 2003 onwards,
AILA Review  (), –.  ./aila..ham
 – / - – © John Benjamins Publishing Company
© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 Rainer Enrique Hamel
the AILA Review has become an ‘English only’ publication. e authors’ guidelines
I received establish that “articles should be written in English. Should? Volume 16
(2003) to 19 (2006) do not contain a single article that is not written in English. is
shi represents a trend that has developed over the 20th century as part and parcel of a
more global language shi process in the international arena of scientic publication.
In the context of dynamic changes in global multilingualism, present day interna-
tional and national communication in science can be framed within a sociolinguistic
conict model of asymmetric relationships and shi between languages on specic
levels of a hierarchy that represent dierentiated power relations in the eld of science.
De Swaan (1993, 2001) designed a hierarchical model of the global world system as
a galaxy of languages: English is today’s sole globally dominant language, the “hyper-
central” language of the world. On the second level we nd less than a dozen “super-
central” languages among which are French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese,
Arabic, Hindi, German and Portuguese. Many of them represent languages of former
colonial or regional empires and are spoken in more than one country. e third level
is occupied by approximately a hundred “central” languages, oen national or signi-
cant regional languages with little or no international diusion. e vast majority of
the world’s languages, some 98 per cent, belong to the fourth level of the “peripheral”
or vernacular languages, which are the mother tongues of usually small ethnic groups
but hold no ocial status in the countries where they are spoken. No wonder ver-
nacular languages almost never appear in the debates about languages in science, since
their status and corpus are considered unt to express scientic thought and research
ndings. Signicant changes in the appreciation of what constitutes scientic thought,
however, as e.g. the profound knowledge about biological and agricultural processes
enshrined in indigenous languages, have brought about a change in focus. Further-
more, many indigenous or intercultural universities founded in Latin America and
other parts of the world increasingly seek to equip indigenous languages for academic
work (Skutnabb-Kangas 2004).
Until the end of World War I English belonged to the small group of leading in-
ternational languages. Once English had gained a signicant lead over its competitors
during World War II (Kaplan 2001), a new category had to be introduced that pointed
to the new status of English. e fundamental language conict and shi process that
has occupied language globalization debates on the international scene focuses on the
course of action by which English is expanding its international domains, thus pushing
all super-central languages into the role of central languages and absorbing their func-
tions in many if not most international arenas. Should this process come to fruition,
English would become the sole language of communication between other language
communities above the state level in most areas. Such a state of aairs coincides with
Crystal’s (1997) model of world bilingualism: everyone speaks her or his own language
and at the same time English as the only foreign language. As a matter of fact, there
has never been a language as dominant as English in history, whose role may however
decline again during the 21st century (Graddol 1997, 2006).
© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
e dominance of English in the international scientic periodical literature 
A central language policy question in the eld of science is whether the present
day hegemony of one language in the multilingual eld of science will give way to the
state of monolingual monopoly, just sketched, where English becomes the only allow-
able language of international and increasingly of national communication, possibly
with irreversible consequences for other languages and their communities; or, whether
the national and international communities of science will oppose multilingualism
being dissolved into monolingualism and opt for plurilingualism as a way to enrich
the academic eld.
In this paper I briey sketch the development of language use in international scien-
tic communication, mainly in periodicals, which has led to the dominance of English.
I then point out some problems related to language policy decisions that rely solely on
language distribution in a small number of international journals, concluding with some
caveats and arguments that explore the future dynamics of language use in science.
From Restricted Plurilingualism to the Dominance of English in scientic
publications
Whether the normal or typical situation for the eld of science was to be dominated by
a single language or several in dierent epochs of history is a matter of debate. Walter
(1996) maintains that, throughout the past millennia, there was one language most of
the time that was used to articulate sciences in the Occident, from the Sumerian to
Greek, Arabic and Latin. Modernity constitutes the exception, when several languages,
basically French, English and later on German, gradually substituted Latin. Others
(Ehlich 2001) have observed that international monolingual communication has al-
ways constituted an idealization which focused on the hegemonic language of its time
and the ‘invisibilisation’ of other languages present in subordinate strands and regions
of scientic development. In any case, the period of modernity which founded and
vigorously developed modern sciences deployed a system of plurilingualism, albeit
limited to a few languages, in the eld of science. e 15th century already witnessed a
process of popularisation of scientic knowledge in Europe which developed French,
English, German, Italian and Russian into scientic languages. Such a course implied
a signicant societal eort which seems dicult to fully appreciate from today’s per-
spective (Ehlich 2001). From Renaissance to the beginning of Modernity advocates of
empirical sciences such as Francis Bacon and the Royal Society in England promoted
doing scientic research publicly in the marketplace which meant a democratization
of science including the use of the local languages. Furthermore, the great advances of
science throughout the Enlightenment in France and elsewhere, namely the extensive
public debates, could not have come about without the massive inroads of the national
languages in scientic and humanistic endeavours.
At the beginning of the 20th century, three languages, English, French and Ger-
man, held a central and fairly balanced position in science, although dierentiated
© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 Rainer Enrique Hamel
by disciplines. No one in the developed world could at that time study or do research
in medicine, biology or chemistry without reading German and publishing scientic
ndings in German journals. Similarly, law and political sciences constituted the realm
of French, whereas English dominated in political economy and geology (see Ammon
1998 for a detailed account). roughout the course of the 20th century, however, this
balance was lost, not because of intrinsic dynamics in the eld of science itself, but due
to socio-economic and political factors. e rise of the USA as the dominant economic
and political world power since the end of the 19th century, a process accelerated by
the two World Wars, constitutes the single most important factor that explains the
shi towards English as today’s dominant language in international communication
including the eld of science.
Figure 1 shows the development of language shi between 1880 and 1980, based
on publications in American, German, French and Russian bibliographies. Figure 2
gives the continuation of the trends from 1980 to 1996 for the natural sciences, where-
as Figure 3 covers the development between 1974 and 1995 for the social sciences. As
we can see in Figure 1, English, French and German held a fairly close ranking be-
tween 1880 and 1910 when the decline of French began. German, in turn, experienced
a signicant peak around 1920 when German publications outranked publications in
English for a short while. e most important result, however, is the constant rise of
English to 64.1% of all publications in 1980, whereas all other languages declined to
11,9
64,1
1,5 2,8 2,2 1,38 1,79
4,56 6
12,42
20,48
15,33
0,1 00,64 0,76 0,32 2,46 1,24 2,1
23,6 22,3
44
33
27,29
21,15
15,21
10,16
33,68
35,8
37,5
30,23
33,26
46,29
48,55
53,31 50,64
55,62
27,6
27,2
14,35 12,21
14,82 14,38
9,43
7,07 4,6
25,66
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1880 1890 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
German
English
French
Ru ssi a n
Japanese
Figure 2: Share of languages in natural science publications worldwide 1880–1996 (per cent
of total publications, ordinate compressed; from Ammon, 1998: 152; Ammon 2006: 3).
10,8
9,2
6,9
3,9
2,1
1,7
2,4
1,3
90,7
87,2
80,5
77,1
74,6
2,1
2,4
2,3
2,3
3,1
1,6
2,5
1,2
1,6
2,9
3,3
3,5
1
10
100
1980 1984 1988 1992 1996
English
Russian
Japanese
French
German
Figure 1. Proportional language use in scientic publications in the course of one cen-
tury in American, German, French and Russian bibliographies (based on data collected
by Tsunoda 1983, in Ammon 1998: 152; Ammon 2006: 3).
© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
e dominance of English in the international scientic periodical literature 
percentages of between 10 and about 15% for German, and Russian, and to much
lower gures for French, Japanese and all other languages. During the time span be-
tween 1980 and 1996 that tendency continued. According to Ammon’s (1998) gures,
English reached a high of 90% for publications in the natural sciences and 82.5% for
the social sciences and humanities in the selected periodicals of international ranking
by the mid 1990s, with no other language exceeding the 10 per cent mark in this selec-
tion of publications.
In the natural sciences English dominance is extreme, and only a few other lan-
guages maintain a small percentage of abstracts in international data bases (Table 1).
Chemistry seems to be the discipline with a slightly wider language distribution,
whereas the “pure” sciences such as mathematics and physics exhibit the highest con-
centration in English.
Within the social sciences and humanities, although the concentration in English
also increases over time, all the languages listed, especially French and German, hold a
greater percentage of publications than they do in the natural sciences.
Other sources complete the general picture, as can be seen in two extensive studies
produced by the “Centro de Información y Documentación Cientíca” (Cindoc 1998,
1999) from Spain which evaluated the role of Spanish in scientic publications. Table 3
11,9
64,1
1,5 2,8 2,2 1,38 1,79
4,56 6
12,42
20,48
15,33
0,1 00,64 0,76 0,32 2,46 1,24 2,1
23,6 22,3
44
33
27,29
21,15
15,21
10,16
33,68
35,8
37,5
30,23
33,26
46,29
48,55
53,31 50,64
55,62
27,6
27,2
14,35 12,21
14,82 14,38
9,43
7,07 4,6
25,66
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1880 1890 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
German
English
Fren ch
Ru ssi a n
Japanese
Figure 2: Share of languages in natural science publications worldwide 1880–1996 (per cent
of total publications, ordinate compressed; from Ammon, 1998: 152; Ammon 2006: 3).
10,8
9,2
6,9
3,9
2,1
1,7
2,4
1,3
90,7
87,2
80,5
77,1
74,6
2,1
2,4
2,3
2,3
3,1
1,6
2,5
1,2
1,6
2,9
3,3
3,5
1
10
100
1980 1984 1988 1992 1996
English
Russian
Japanese
French
German
Figure 2. Share of languages in natural science publications worldwide 1880–1996 (per
cent of total publications, ordinate compressed; from Ammon, 1998: 152; Ammon 2006: 3).
© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 Rainer Enrique Hamel
shows the average percentage of publications between 1992 and 1997 in the main lan-
guages in relevant data bases for the social sciences and humanities.
82,5
6,8 5,9
4,1
3,8
2,2
66,6 69,1 70,6 71,7 71,7
5,9
6,6 5,9 5,9
5,7
5,4
8
5,2 6
3,6 4
3,8
3,6
1
10
100
1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1995
English
French
German
Spanish
In the natural sciences English dominance is extreme, and only a few other languages
maintain a small percentage of abstracts in international data bases (Table 1). Chemistry
seems to be the discipline with a slightly wider language distribution, whereas the “pure”
sciences such as mathematics and physics exhibit the highest concentration in English.
Table 1
Table 1: Share of languages in several natural sciences in 1996 (sources: Biological,
Chemical, Physical Abstracts, Medline, MathSci Disc, adapted from Ammon 1998)
Figure 3. Share of languages in social sciences and humanities publications worldwide
1997–1995 (per cent of total publications, ordinate compressed; from Ammon, 1998: 167;
Ammon 2006: 4).
Table 1. Share of languages in several natural sciences in 1996 (sources: Biological,
Chemical, Physical Abstracts, Medline, MathSci Disc, adapted from Ammon 1998)
Languages Biology Chemistry Physics Medicine Mathematics Natural Sciences
(average)
English 91.6 83.2 94.8 88.6 94.3 90.7
Russian 1.9 3.8 0.2 1.6 3.2 2.1
Japanese 1.1 3.9 1.7 1.8 0.2 1.7
German 1.1 1.9 0.9 2.2 0.3 1.3
French 1.4 0.7 0.4 1.9 2.3 1.2
Chinese 0.8 4.2 1.2 0.1 1.1
Spanish 0.6 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.1
Italian 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.1
Portuguese 0.3 0.1
Other 0.9 1.1 0.7 1.9 3.0
© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
e dominance of English in the international scientic periodical literature 
Table 2. Share of languages in several social sciences and humanities in 1995 (sources:
SocioFile, Historical Abstracts on Disc, e Philosopher’s Index, adapted from Ammon
1998)
Languages Sociology 1996 History 1995 Philosophy
1995
Soc Sc and Hum.
1995
English 85.8 78.0 85.5 82.5
French 4.2 6.0 7.4 5.9
German 4.4 5.3 3.2 4.1
Spanish 1.6 2.8 1.8 2.2
Italian 0.9 2.1 0.8.
Japanese 0.2 0.4 0.1
Russian 1.5 1.4
Chinese 0.4
Other 1.4 3.6 1.2 5.3
Table 3. Share of languages in selected data bases in the social sciences and humanities
from 1992 to 1997 (Cindoc 1999).
Data Bases German Spanish French English Italian
A & H Search 8.15 2.11 11.65 71.95 3.70
Delphes 0.89 0.90 89.98 7.76 0.49
Econlit 1.00 2.20 95.6 1.20
Eric 0.05 0.16 0.37 99.37 0.01
Francis 5.22 4.11 35.02 32.72 4.61
Historical Abstracts 7.85 2.26 6.85 77.73 2.46
LLBA 6.29 1.77 7.82 76.32 1.23
MLA 7.55 6.57 9.02 73.63 2.00
Philosopher Index 7.00 6.33 3.00 78.01 2.66
Psych Info 1.34 0.85 1.16 95.20 0.42
Sociological Abstracts 3.65 2.07 4.56 85.75 1.37
Social Science Search 2.95 0.33 1.64 93.66 0.04
LLBA: Linguistics & Language Behavior Abstracts
MLA: Modern Language Abstracts
Table 4 presents the average percentage of publications in all the consulted sources
for the social sciences and humanities for the period of study covered in this research
(Cindoc 1999). While in such a short period of time no dramatic changes would be
evident, all languages except English and French declined slightly in their percentages1
with English reaching nearly 75% of all publications by 1997.
© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 Rainer Enrique Hamel
Table 4. Average share of languages in all consulted data bases for 1992 to 1997 in per
cent (Cindoc 1999)
Languages 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
English 67.11 68.84 71.50 74.83 71.70 74.57
French 14.02 16.56 16.62 16.81 16.93 16.89
German 4.54 4.59 4.22 4.74 3.77 3.14
Spanish 2.06 2.39 2.27 2.04 2.12 1.37
Italian 1.87 1.73 1.66 1.48 1.56 1.98
e conclusion is that, by the end of the 20th century, English had become the domi-
nant language in selected international journals with 75 per cent or higher of pub-
lications. Important dierences arise between the natural sciences on the one hand,
and the social sciences and humanities on the other with the latter retaining a greater
proportion of publications in other languages including in books which continue to
play a central role in most social sciences and humanities (Cindoc 1998, 1999). is
dierence, although small in absolute numbers in this kind of studies, turns out to be
relevant for language policies and strategies in the eld of science. As a matter of fact,
the proportional growth of English masks the absolute growth of publications in many
other languages given the rapid expansion of the scientic market in general.
e shi towards English implies that an increasing number of scientists whose
mother tongue is not English have shied to English for publication. An empirical trace
of this process can be identied directly in the fact that the number of contributions
in English language journals by authors from non Anglophone countries has grown
signicantly over the past decades. Indirect evidence materializes in the fact that pub-
lications in languages such as French, German, Russian or Spanish are increasingly
loosing their attraction as places for publication by authors whose mother tongue is
not the language of publication. Consequently, the proportion of native authors grows
in these publications. is very important process aects the status of international,
super central languages which is dened by the fact that participants from outside
their native language circle use the language for purposes of international communi-
cation. us, in terms of Kachru’s (1986) framework of three concentric circles that
represent the zones of inuence of international or imperial languages, the third circle
of foreigners using that language is rapidly expanding in the case of English, whereas
it is evidently shrinking or even imploding in the case of other super central languages
in the eld of science. Ammon (1998) provides the following tables (5a and 5b) which
show the relative increase of German authors in German language publications, while
at the same time their participation in English language publications grows as well.
In sum, when we observe the process of international communication dened
narrowly as the exchange of information between speakers of dierent languages as re-
ected in a reduced number of high ranking international periodical publications, we
can only arrive at the conclusion that relevant scientic ndings have to be published
in English if their authors want to be acknowledged by the top scientic community
© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
e dominance of English in the international scientic periodical literature 
of their discipline. Even results of utmost relevance and originality, e.g. in natural sci-
ences or medicine, may get lost or pass unnoticed if they are published in any other
language.
Monolingualism or plurilingualism in science?
e previous conclusion based on trends in databases calls for further explanation and
dierentiation. e question whether monolingualism in international scientic com-
munication will nally become the norm and if this is a desirable outcome is a matter
of debate.
In many investigations and discussions of language globalisation, and, more
broadly, globalisation as such, the past two decades have been characterised by a ten-
dency to not accept the possibility of alternatives to the dominant views, much along
the lines of Margaret atcher’s rude and famous “there is no alternative. For many,
therefore, there is no alternative to the English monopoly in international communi-
cation. Numerous inuential studies, however, exaggerate English dominance, either
by using wrong or distorted information2 or by the very design of their approach and
the construction of their data base. Ammon (2003) points out that the databases in
the social sciences and humanities he used for his 1998 study are biased towards Eng-
lish and are much less representative for publications worldwide that the ones in the
natural sciences. Most biographical databases create a vicious circle of self fullling
prophecies based on a strong bias in favour of English and Anglophone countries.
Such a bias can be inferred from data in the Citation Indexes, as Sandelin and Sara-
foglou (2004) pointed out in their study on language and publication statistics. us,
the Arts and Humanities Citation Index for 2006 cites 62,513 entries in English. Given
the selection of journals it happens that Germany, one of the world’s leading nations in
these elds whose researchers increasingly publish in English, publishes fewer articles
in English than Australia and Scotland, Italy ranks behind Wales and Spain behind
Table 5a. Share of authors from Germany in Biological Abstracts (percent of total publica-
tions, Ammon 1998: 154).
Biological abstracts 1980 1984 1988 1992 1995
In German-language contributions 22.0 23.6 26.7 10.7 77.2
In English-language contributions 0.7 3.0 3.1 1.4 5.3
Table 5b. Share of authors from Germany in MathSciDisc (percent of total publications,
Ammon 1998: 154).
MathSciDisc 1975 1980 1982 1983 1985 1990 1995
In German-language contributions 1.3 2.1 4.4 27.7 38.8 51.2 58.0
In English-language contributions 6.0 6.0 6.2 10.2 12.2 12.1 12.3
© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 Rainer Enrique Hamel
New Zealand and Ireland (Table 6). Similarly, in the entries in Spanish for the same
year, US contributions are the most frequent (Table 7). If the journals included in
these citation indexes were representative of the quality and quantity in a given eld, it
would mean that the USA outnumbers and produces more noteworthy publications in
Spanish than any Spanish-speaking country. Here we nd in the selection of journals
included not only a signicant bias in favour of English as the language of publication,
but also in favour of Anglophone countries as the origin of publication in other lan-
guages (Baldauf, Jr, and Jernudd 1986). Who selects the journals and who denes the
impact factors? Generally speaking, the selected journals create impact through their
citation of articles by authors in a self-validating process.
Table 6. Arts & Humanities Citation Index 2006. 62,513 Entries in English by Countries
or Territories of Origin
Country Entries Country Entries
USA 18,617 France 356
England 5,776 Wales 335
Canada 1,788 Italy 322
Australia 970 Israel 276
Scotland 792 New Zealand 251
Germany 590 Ireland 209
Netherlands 408 Spain 191
Table 7. Arts & Humanities Citation Index 2006. 1.384 Entries in Spanish by Countries
or Territories of Origin
Country Entries Country Entries
USA 245 France 22
Spain 205 Canada 7
Chile 45 England 6
Argentina 28 Italy 6
Mexico 27 Peru 5
e focus on English blurs our view of the existence of important and well-established
circles of international academic communication outside English such as the interna-
tional networks of the Francophonie which comprises over 50 countries and their uni-
versities (Association des Universités francophones, AUF). Every year ACFAS, the As-
sociation Francophone pour le Savoir, organises a large congress in Québec with several
thousand papers in all elds of science that are presented overwhelmingly in French,
even by participants from Anglophone countries. Certainly, French is the most visible
case of status loss as international language which includes the eld of science. How-
ever, international studies on the topic hardly ever acknowledge the close networks
and intensive international communication in science that functions in French (Rous-
seau 2005).
© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
e dominance of English in the international scientic periodical literature 
Similarly, Hispanic America and Spain maintain solid and massive academic com-
munication in Spanish which is more autonomous in the social sciences and humani-
ties than in the natural sciences. is network comprises many thousands of jour-
nals published mostly in Spanish. UNAM, the leading Mexican university with over
300,000 students, created Latindex, a scientic index which includes 11,000 periodical
publications from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal, out of which
2,883 are Brazilian (Café 2005).
Over the past decade, the linguistic and academic integration of Brazil, which pro-
duces 40 per cent of Latin America’s scientic publications (Café 2005), with its main
Hispanophone neighbours, has progressed signicantly through the Common Mar-
ket of the Southern Cone (Mercosur). General communication including academic
exchange and cooperation are based on a language policy of receptive bilingualism
in Spanish and Portuguese, with no need to revert to English (Hamel 2003b). Few
experts would expect that Brazil alone produces 5,986 scientic and technical journals
(Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia, in Café 2005). e over-
whelming majority of them are published in Portuguese, but only 17 are registered in
the international Science Citation Index (Café 2005).3 Who reads these journals, what
do they publish, and why would their circulation not be of relevance according to
standards exclusively dened by the increasingly monolingual Anglophone academia
and their satellites in other language areas?
e previous discussion posits the question about what we understand by inter-
national scientic communication, how it relates to other scientic communication
and to what extent it makes sense to separate scientic communication (publications
and conference presentations) from the whole process of scientic production. Inter-
national communication sould not be reduced to interlingual communication, i. e. the
interaction between speakers of dierent language communities, but should include
the extensive and diverse scientic communication of established networks inside
Francophonie, the Luso-Hispanic or the Anglophone world.
Furthermore, the dynamics of scientic communication seem to signal a tendency
of internationalisation which makes it more and more dicult to distinguish between
national and international communication. I would argue that globalisation is increas-
ingly diluting the distinction between the national and the international sphere, and
is dissolving nation-states altogether (Hardt and Negri 2000) — with the exception of
the USA. As it happens, the thrust for English as the only world language in science
blurs the hegemony of a single national state, the USA, under the label of ‘globalisa-
tion and creates the ideology that English has already become so international that
it neither belongs to any country, nor is it controlled by any group of native speakers
(Crystal 1997, see a critique in Hamel 2006b). Authors critical of this stance belonging
to super central language communities such as French and German (Durand 2001,
2006, Ehlich 2001, 2005) have identied traces of cultural imperialism in this process
which not only aects the national scientic cultures but the development of science
as a whole. e US scientic market is largely organised in terms of a national and
© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 Rainer Enrique Hamel
imperial structure which admits subordinate foreign participation within the frame-
works established by US science, but not as a global market. Its impressive capacity
to individually shape and absorb foreign scientic intelligentsia and thus maintain its
worldwide lead does not suggest that there is any signicant inuence of other scien-
tic communities in its structure or organisation. e same applies to language use
where tolerance of foreign pronunciation of English only supercially covers up the
real language and discourse requirements for academic work in English only.
On the other hand, the national scientic organisation of the world’s most power-
ful country signicantly inuences the course and structure of science policies in most
other countries. erefore, while the idea of introducing a kind of diglossic barrier be-
tween international scientic communication in English and national communication
in the local languages that could shelter the latter looks quite attractive at rst sight (e.
g. Ammon 2006), this is less feasible in a globalising world since linguistic boundaries
coincide less and less with national borders, as is highlighted in the debate on language
use in science in the Scandinavian countries (Phillipson 2001, 2003) or in the Euro-
pean Union (Ammon and McConnell 2002). What we witness is in fact a process of
increasing linguistic hierarchisation and of domain loss for lower ranking languages.
Stable language boundaries tend to disappear. Once English is declared the only inter-
national language for science, all other languages not only lose international status but
are menaced in their own territories, as Durand (2001, 2006) stringently argues.
Similarly, the linguistic and conceptual division operated in many studies between
the communication of results and the larger eld it belongs to, i.e. the eld of scien-
tic production, circulation, and the construction of human capital through academic
teaching and team-working, becomes arguable when submitted to closer scrutiny.
Congress papers and publications are integrated into the larger cycle of scientic pro-
duction which is by itself a communicative social process that implies a research com-
munity. e attempt to isolate the external communication part and assign a language
to it that diers from the one used in the rest of the process may only transfer linguistic
and other conceptual conicts from one place to another in the eld of science. In any
case, integrated plurilingual models in the whole eld of science are called for to attend
possible conicts (Hamel 2006a).
Ultimately, the diculties of introducing clear-cut diglossic barriers in any part
of the process of producing, teaching and diusing science has deep roots in the very
nature of the science-and-language relation, i.e. in the language of science itself. e
idea of an abstract language structure common to all languages whose slots only need
to be lled with interchangeable technical terminology from each language may have
risen within natural sciences where the very process of acquiring scientic knowledge
is largely identied with memorising technical nomenclature, at least in the begin-
ning (e. g. in medicine). Scientic language, however, is much more than that, es-
pecially if we focus on the alltägliche Wissenschassprache, the everyday language of
science, as Ehlich (2001: 7) calls it. Beyond the specic scientic terminology, this
register uses a particular national language with its structure and idiomatic properties
© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
e dominance of English in the international scientic periodical literature 
for the purposes of oral and written communication. Consequently, we can only access
world scientic knowledge through the existing languages and their structures, which
provides a perspective of diversity to the dynamics of world knowledge development
(Ehlich 2001). e experience of multiple perspectives enshrined in specic languages
of science may constitute a relevant barrier against scientic ethnocentrism oen dis-
guised under the cover of globalism.
Beyond the individual experiences, it has been argued that the reduction of sci-
ence to one language could severely hamper the development of science itself. is
line of thought is related to Humboldts and Herder’s view of the role languages play
for cultures and nations, and to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis about cultural relativism
and linguistic determinism, a debate that has been referred to in many publications
on the topic of language and science (e.g. Ammon 2006, Durand 2001, Ehlich 2001).
More important than to discuss whether research ndings formulated in one language
can be properly translated into another is to acknowledge the risks and the possibility
of distorted results that may derive from the study of language use in science based on
a narrow concept of language as an abstract structural entity, and to exclude from the
analysis its interrelation with power relations, discourse structures and cultural models
underlying research orientations (Hamel 2003a). A comprehensive investigation, that
includes these three components would have to show to what extent the present pro-
cess of spreading English in science implies the imposition of a specic Anglo-Saxon
scientic discourse and related cultural models, research paradigms and selection of
topics. Power relations and hierarchisation of prestige between approaches, scientic
schools, disciplines and lobby groups from outside turn out to play a fundamental
role in the dynamics of science, as Bourdieu (1984) so masterly demonstrated when
analysing Academia as a sociological eld. e new hierarchy with English on top,
including its discourse structures and related cultural models, constitutes a powerful
instrument and at the same time an outcome of this broader process.
e increasing supremacy of English reinforces a tendency towards growing
monolingualism in science. Whereas only y or seventy years ago Anglophone sci-
entists could hardly aord to ignore relevant literature in at least a few other languages,
today they can deny the very existence of scientic results outside English and re-
invent the wheel as is oen ironically observed from outside. On the one hand, this
process generates bi- or multilingual language prociency among non Anglophones.
An important argument in favour of scientic monolingualism has always been the
fact that non-Anglophones, especially speakers of languages which are marginal to
science, would only have to learn one foreign language instead of several, an argument
that cannot be easily dismissed (Ammon 2006).
On the other hand, it reinforces a tendency towards individual and societal mono-
lingualism among Anglophones who feel less and less inclined to acquire foreign lan-
guages for science and other purposes of international communication when they can
achieve their goals and do their business in English. Such an individual and societal
language policy is based on the rationale that, to learn any or even several foreign
© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 Rainer Enrique Hamel
languages for academic purposes would not provide the Anglophone academic with
an access to more bibliography than English alone can supply, as Ammon (2006) cor-
rectly points out. Furthermore, it saves the Anglophone countries and their speakers a
signicant investment in capital, eort and time by not learning other languages (Grin
2005). Another perhaps more profound reason for such an “English only” strategy is
the perpetuation of an asymmetric power relation between the Anglophone native
speakers and their non native counterparts in international communication. Many
of our Anglophone colleagues in the elds of second language acquisition, bilingual
education or multilingualism celebrate linguistic diversity in theory but practice func-
tional monolingualism since they do not publish, teach or communicate in any other
language. In English they can play their role as communicative stars at international
conferences or promote their publications that are usually better formulated, with-
out having to be more sound or profound than those of the non native authors. Such
individual and societal strategies may provide advantages in the short term. It bars
the monolingual researchers, however, from acquiring the fundamental experience
of encountering multiple research perspectives through knowledge framed in other
languages, and to measure their own knowledge against the possible world knowledge
formulated in a diversity of languages. Beyond such personal experience, individual
and societal monolingualism is regarded increasingly as a handicap in a modern, glo-
balising world, both by representatives of the English language industry that prots
from the expansion of English (Crystal 1997; Graddol 1997, 2006) and by those who
oppose scientic and other types of monolingualism (Durand 2001, 2006; Ehlich 2001,
Hamel 2005, 2006a; Phillipson 2003).
e dominance of English in science and its perspectives
e present pre-eminence of English language use in scientic publications has al-
ready severely reduced multilingualism in the eld, and may eliminate the status of
any other language as an international language of science. Figures and forecasts send
out a mixed message for future development. Most of them seem to suggest that there
is an inevitable course of aairs towards an English monopoly. is is furthermore
presented as a natural process and by-product of globalisation by many experts. If
you want to have your research ndings read by the relevant international scientic
community, so the story goes, you have to publish in English. Whether this tendency
is desirable or not is a matter of international and national debate where many actors
understandably take sides according to the perceived interests of their professional
and language communities.
As we have seen, many investigations on the use of languages in science reduce
their object of study step by step to focus on the language of publication in a small,
selected number of prestigious international journals included in the main databas-
es and citation indexes that today are predominantly published by English language
© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
e dominance of English in the international scientic periodical literature 
enterprises. Certainly, journals well documented in large databases are fairly easy to
research for language use, compared to the complex sociolinguistic eld of produc-
tion, circulation and diusion of science. us, this strand of research usually isolates
scientic communication, mainly its publications, from the eld of science as a whole
with its possible negative consequences. Finally, the complex relation between lan-
guages, discourse structures and cultural models is not examined and the fundamental
question to what extent dominant research paradigms and their ideological construc-
tion prot from the integration of the these three components but spread even beyond
language borders is not pursued, with rare exceptions.
In the previous section I have argued why such systematic reductions in the con-
struction of language use in science as an object of research may be tainted with li-
guicentrism and objectively trigger o a circle of self fullling prophecies. Given such
reductions in the scope of research, it should not be surprising that overwhelmingly
the gures and the supposedly inevitable arguments for natural processes pave the way
to English monolingualism.
Any language policy proposals will have to tackle the complex question whether
stable language domains can be established that recognise English as the sole inter-
national language of science and nd some niches for other languages, mainly on the
intra-national level and for academic teaching (e.g. Ammon 2006, Ammon and Mc-
Connell 2002). Interestingly, the Francophonie discussed this question over 20 years
ago, namely whether the whole eld of the natural sciences was already ‘lost’ for French
and should be abandoned to English (see Walter 1996 and Maurais’ personal commu-
nication in 2003). Such a position was however never adopted by French institutions.
Durand (2001, 2006), a rm defender of French and plurilinguism in science, strongly
argues against the recognition of English or any other language as the sole interna-
tional language of science, since that would entail negative consequences not only for
French but for the role of French scientic contributions as a whole. Contrary to a
common view he argues that, if French scientic ndings were exclusively published
in English, French science would lose visibility and recognition on the international
scene. Such a policy would furthermore deter people around the globe from learning
French or any other language except English.
I have elsewhere (Hamel 2003a, 2005, 2006a) argued in favour of a plurilingual
enrichment model for Spanish as a language of science that might help to avoid a zero
sum game and the “either or” dichotomy present in approaches that assume the
unrestricted defense of a given language and foster monolingualism. Plurilingualism
entails a view of intercultural communication where ones own position or academic
standpoint recognises that other perspectives and procedures are also part of the pos-
sible world knowledge; or, to put it another way, that other valid positions and knowl-
edge bases exist that may be formulated in terms of dierent languages, discourse
structures and cultural model that dene research paradigms.
Ammon (2006: 19) proposes an interesting scheme of hypothetic attitudes that
inform and guide linguistic behaviour among academics and determine reading
© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 Rainer Enrique Hamel
preferences. First, he establishes a reading preference hierarchy between English, other
international languages and non international languages which is probably irrefutable
based on sheer language competence and numbers of publications. More interestingly,
he postulates that both Anglophones and non Anglophones prefer to read texts writ-
ten by Anglophone native speakers over those written by non native language users
who publish in English. Such a predilection, if it turned out to be empirically sus-
tained, would have to be explained, not so much in terms of stylistic quality, but rather
in terms of discourse structures and cultural models that correspond to dominant re-
search paradigms. Readers academics or others enjoy texts that conrm their
own knowledge, beliefs and values including familiar ways of organising texts. Beyond
that basic preference, critical readers probably rather look for contributions from oth-
er cultural and linguistic communities to whose languages they have no direct access.
Furthermore, those researchers who keep track of publications in a number languages
have certainly experienced that, while fundamental contributions appear in leading
English language journals, there is also a huge amount of low quality work being pub-
lished in English, given the sheer numbers of publications and the economic interests
of publishing houses. Very oen native writers of English nd it easier than non na-
tives to have their work published, even if their contribution adds little to the eld,
just because they are capable of formulating their papers in mainstream conventional
discourse styles. Conversely, we oen hit upon real jewels of inspiring research formu-
lated in other languages that are fully integrated into the sophisticated research tradi-
tions of, say, French, German or Spanish social and philosophical thought that may
never reach the English language market or appear only years later.
Ammon’s typology should therefore be broadened by adding some alternative at-
titudes that characterise the critical researcher oriented towards plurilingualism:
1. To actively read scientic literature in as many languages as possible.
2. To prefer texts in their original languages over translations.
3. To quote the original texts — with translation only if necessary — to counteract
the growing ‘invisibilisation’ of other languages than English in scientic texts.
4. To avoid the translation of titles into English in reference lists.
5. To present whenever possible one’s own papers in the host country’s language.
e perspectives of the future constellations of language relations seem to be largely
uncertain in a rapidly changing world. In 1997, Graddol (1997: 58) argued that in the
course of the 21st century no single language would occupy the monopolistic position
which English achieved by the end of the 20th century. Rather, an array of some six
languages would form an oligopoly as the world’s dominant languages. In his updated
prognosis on the future of world languages, Graddol (2006) moves English from the
role of a foreign language to that of a basic skill comparable to computer skills for
almost any society. But he argues forcefully that “English will not be enough in the
UK, the USA or elsewhere (Graddol 2006: 118–119) to survive in a future multilingual
world society. e same in my view applies to the eld of science: “English will not
© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
e dominance of English in the international scientic periodical literature 
be enough”, neither to enhance international communication in science nor to foster
creativity and diversity in the scientic research of the future.
Many experts had identied the rise of the USA as the dominant economic, politi-
cal and military power since the end of the 19th century as the single most important
factor to explain the hegemony of English. If in the soon future a monopolar power
relation that existed since the end of the Cold War will give way to a multipolar world
which revitalises the role of Europe and includes the BRIC states as emerging super-
powers, there is no reason to take the survival of English as the only world language for
granted, even if it is increasingly taking on the status of world lingua franca that has au-
tonomy from its internal circle (Kachru 1986) of native speaking countries. ose who
reject other languages and attempt to formalise a language policy that institutionalises
English as the only international language of science already may be outdated, caught
in a phase of globalisation and an ideal of monolingual communication that is coming
to an end. In light of this it can be argued that those language communities that pre-
serve the vitality, updating and presence of their languages in the eld of science, even
if they occupy only a small percentage in international publications, provide an impor-
tant service for their own language community and the international community of
science. ey avoid possibly irreversible language attrition for their own languages and
contribute to maintaining a plurilingual perspective in the eld of science. Maybe such
a plural language policy will help to open the AILA Review again to languages other
than English, and we may see articles published in Spanish, Chinese, Arabic or Hindi
at some point in the future.
Notes
. in Table 3 and 4, the numbers for French are signicantly distorted, i. e. they range much
higher than in other comparisons due to the inclusion of the French Delphis data base which
assigns over 70% of its coverage to French publications.
. According to Graddol (1997: 11), 19 countries that are currently shiing from an EFL status
(English as a foreign language) to a L2 status for English, meaning that “the use of English for
intranational use is greatly increasing”. At least for Argentina, Honduras and Nicaragua that are
among the countries he mentions such an assertion is clearly wrong. Later on Graddol (2006)
acknowledges that the very distinction of L2 status is losing its meaning, and, following Kachru
(2004), he suggests that dierent levels of prociency among learners should rather be consid-
ered when analysing the role of English. However, the massive distribution of his oeuvre has le
the wrong impression that Latin America is shiing to English in a way comparable to many
Asian countries. is is certainly not the case.
. To render Brazilian research and Portuguese more visible in international science, the Brazil-
ian federal government created an online library (SCIELO, Scientic Electronic Library Online)
with 92 selected Brazilian journals, mainly in the eld of medicine. 16.3 % of them publish only
in English, but almost a third (32.6%) accept articles in English, Portuguese of Spanish, the three
languages usually read by Brazilian scientists (Café 2005).
© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
 Rainer Enrique Hamel
References
Ammon, U. 1998. Ist Deutsch noch internationale Wissenschassprache? Englisch auch für die
Lehre an den deutschsprachigen Hochschulen. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Ammon, U. 2003. Global English and the non-native speaker: Overcoming disadvantage. In
Language in the Twenty-First Century, H. Tonkin & T. Reagan (eds), 23–34. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Ammon, U. 2006. Language planning for international scientic communication: An overview
of questions and potential solutions. Current Issues in Language Planning 7(1): 1–30.
Ammon, U. & McConnell, G. 2002. English as an Academic Language in Europe. Frankfurt: Peter
Lang.
Baldauf Jr., R.B. & Jernudd, B. H. 1986. Aspects of language use in cross-cultural psychology.
Australian Journal of Psychology 32(3): 381–392.
Bourdieu, P. 1984. Homo academicus. Paris: Minuit.
Café, L. 2005. A língua portuguesa nas publicações cientícas: O caso brasileiro. In Congreso
Internacional sobre Lenguas Neolatinas en la Comunicación Especializada, Centro de Estu-
dios Lingüísticos y Literarios (ed.), 141–147. México: Agence Intergouvernamentale de la
Francophonie, El Colegio de México, Unión Latina.
Cindoc (Centro de Información y Documentación Cientíca). 1998. La producción cientíca
en español. In Anuario Instituto Cervantes. Madrid. http://cvc.cervantes.es/obref/anuario/
anuario_98.
Cindoc (Centro de Información y Documentación Cientíca). 1999. El español en las revistas
de ciencia y tecnología recogidas en ocho bases de datos internacionales. In Anuario Insti-
tuto Cervantes, Madrid. http://cvc.cervantes.es/obref/anuario/anuario_99.
Crystal, D. 1997. English as a Global Language. Cambridge: CUP.
De Swaan, A. 1993. e emergent world language system: An introduction. International Politi-
cal Science Review 14(3): 219–26.
De Swaan, A. 2001. Words of the World. e Global Language System. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Durand, C. 2001. La mise en place des monopoles du savoir. Paris: LHarmattan.
Durand, C. 2006. If it’s not in English, it’s not worth reading!. Current Issues in Language Plan-
ning 7(1): 44–60.
Ehlich, K. 2001. Wissenschassprachkomparatistik. In Mehrsprachige Wissenscha — europäi-
sche Perspektiven. Eine Konferenz im Europäischen Jahr der Sprachen, K. Ehlich (ed.), 1–10.
München: Universität München.
Ehlich, K. 2005. Deutsch als Medium wissenschalichen Arbeitens. In Englisch oder Deutsch in
internationalen Studiengängen?, M. Motz (ed.), 41–51. Frankfurt: PeterLang.
Graddol, D. 1997. e Future of English? London: e British Council.
Graddol, D. 2006. English Next. Why global English may mean the end of ‘English as a foreign
language. London: e British Council.
Grin, F. 2005. L’enseignement des langues étrangères comme politique publique. Rapport établi
à la demande du Haut Conseil de l’Évaluation de l’École. Paris : Haut Conseil de l’Évaluation
de l’École.
Hamel, R.E. 2003a. El español como lengua de las ciencias frente a la globalización del inglés.
Diagnóstico y propuestas de acción para una política latinoamericana del lenguaje en el
campo de las ciencias y la educación superior. México DF: UAM.
© 2007. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
e dominance of English in the international scientic periodical literature 
Hamel, R.E. 2003b. Regional blocs as a barrier against English hegemony? e language policy
of Mercosur in South America. In Languages in a Globalising World, J. Maurais & M.A.
Morris (eds.), 111–142. Cambridge: CUP.
Hamel, R.E. 2005. El español en el campo de las ciencias: propuestas para una política del len-
guaje. In Congreso Internacional sobre Lenguas Neolatinas en la Comunicación Especializada
Centro de Estudios Lingüísticos y Literarios (ed.), 87–112. México: Agence Intergouverna-
mentale de la Francophonie, El Colegio de México, Unión Latina.
Hamel, R.E. 2006a. Spanish in science and higher education: perspectives for a plurilingual
language policy in the Spanish speaking world. Current Issues in Language Planning 7(1):
95–125.
Hamel, R.E. 2006b. e development of language empires. In Sociolinguistics — Soziolinguistik.
An international handbook of the science of language and society, U. Ammon, N. Dittmar,
K.J. Mattheier & P. Trudgill, (eds.), Volume 3, 2240–2258. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
Hardt, M. & Negri, A. 2000. Empire. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Kachru, B.1986. e Alchemy of English: e spread, functions and models of non-native Eng-
lishes. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kachru, B. 2004. Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Kaplan, R.B. 2001. English — the accidental language of science. In e Dominance of English
as a Language of Science — Eects on Other Languages and Language Communities, U. Am-
mon (ed.), 3–26. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: OUP.
Phillipson, R. 2001. English or no to English in Scandinavia? English Today 17(2): 22–28.
Phillipson, R. 2003. English-Only Europe? London: Routledge
Rousseau, L.J. 2005. Le français dans la communication scientique et technique. In Congreso
Internacional sobre Lenguas Neolatinas en la Comunicación Especializada, Centro de Estu-
dios Lingüísticos y Literarios (ed.), 113–140. México: Agence Intergouvernamentale de la
Francophonie, El Colegio de México, Unión Latina.
Sandelin, B. & Sarafoglou, N. 2004. Language and scientic publication statistics. Language
Problems and Language Planning 28(1): 1–10.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 2004. Políticas del lenguaje y educación: el papel de la educación en la de-
strucción o el soporte de la diversidad lingüística. Dimensión Antropológica 10(28): 91–186.
(English version http://www.linguapax.org/congres/plenaries/skutnabb.html).
Tsunoda, M. 1983. Les langues internationales dans les publications scientiques et techniques.
Sophia Linguistica 13: 144–155.
Walter, H. 1996. L’évolution des langues de la communication scientique. Le français et les
langue scientiques de demain ». Congrès de l’Association francophone pour le savoir (AC-
FAS) 1996, Montréal, http://www.acfas.ca/evenements/conf_inaugurale.html.
Author’s address
R. E. Hamel
Antiguo Camino a San Pedro Mártir 42–3
14630 México, D. F.
Mexico
ehamel@xanum.uam.mx
... ELF u nauci i akademskoj zajednici -prednosti i mane U prethodnim milenijumima oduvek je postojao jedan dominantan jezik koji se koristio u nauci: sumerski, grčki, arapski, latinski (Hamel, 2007). U XV veku dolazi do popularizacije naučnog znanja u Evropi i uvođenja francuskog, engleskog, nemačkog, italijanskog i ruskog u jezik nauke. ...
Article
Full-text available
The author of the paper studied the experience and attitudes of 30 scholars working at a faculty in Serbia. The results of the questionnaire comply with the findings of much larger linguistic and sociolinguistic studies conducted on the subject in other non-English academic communities. Namely, to achieve personal academic goals and receive international recognition, all respondents are obliged to publish their papers in English. The choice of the publishing language is simple and does not depend on respondent's age, gender, degree of education, scientific field, knowledge of other foreign languages, and English competence. The choice of publishing language is obvious and comes down to English as a lingua franca (ELF) because 93% of scholars questioned consider English the most significant language for their scientific career and research field. Although they all publish their papers in ELF, most of these non-native speakers of English face both linguistic and non-linguistic issues in terms of lack of material resources, access to the latest research and technical problems. However, the bright side of the questionnaire is the finding that as much as 77% of respondents teaching at one faculty in Serbia publish their articles in the national journals in their native language. Thus, it is conclusive that ELF does not represent a threat to the Serbian language which still remains an important channel of publishing. Certainly, it is necessary to conduct a more extensive study on attitudes of a larger number of Serbian scholars regarding publishing in their native language and English, but this sample confirms that ELF is not necessarily a threat to local languages provided that it is regarded as a means of communication between scientists who do not speak the same native language.
... ;https://doi.org/10.1101https://doi.org/10. /2022 increased and by excluding studies published in other languages and with other bilingual profiles the authors perpetuate the notion that English is the normative language for study and address only the utility of DA for Spanish/English bilinguals (Thornton, 2000;Hamel, 2007). In the 2022 article, Hunt et al., reviewed 10 studies; 9 of which claim to have successfully identified DLD in children under the age of 12. Like Orellana et al. (2019), Hunt et al. (2022) focused specifically on tools used in the diagnosis of oral language difficulties and did not include DAs evaluating literacy skills. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Traditional static literacy assessments evaluate acquired knowledge and are prone to floor effects. These tools are also developed almost exclusively for English monolinguals, and therefore cannot be used equitably to evaluate the abilities of bilingual children. Dynamic assessment (DA), which evaluates the ability to learn a skill, is a potential alternative, and more equitable approach to evaluating critical early literacy skills of phonological awareness, sound-symbols knowledge, and decoding. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the concurrent validity of DAs of early literacy with their static equivalents, and their predictive validity longitudinally with later word reading outcome measures both overall across all populations, and specifically with bilingual and at-risk groups. Thirty studies were identified through searching 5 databases, and the grey literature. Included studies provided a correlation between a dynamic and concurrent static assessment, or a dynamic and a later reading outcome measure. Results of the first random effects meta-analysis suggested that overall, there was a strong relationship between dynamic and static assessments (r=.58). Subgroup analysis revealed that there were significant differences (p=.0012) between DAs of distinct early literacy skills, with decoding (r=.72) and phonological awareness (r=.50) measures demonstrating greater degrees of correlation with their static counterparts, compared to DAs of sound-symbol knowledge (r=.34). The outcomes of the second random effects meta-analysis indicate that there is a similarly strong relationship between DAs and word reading outcome measures overall (r=.58). Subgroup analyses did not reveal significant differences (p=.0593) in the predictive association between DAs of phonological awareness (r=.55) and decoding (r=.58). There were insufficient studies to conduct separate analyses for bilingual and at-risk populations. However, a narrative review suggests that the magnitude of the effect sizes from individual studies conducted with these populations are in line with overall correlational findings. There is also some evidence to suggest that DAs have the capacity to explain a significant amount of variance in later word reading outcomes in bilingual (7-11%) and at-risk groups (7-21%). Future studies should examine the validity of DAs specifically for use with well-defined bilingual and at-risk groups, as these are the populations who potentially have the most to gain from these measures.
... English is the language of science and almost all literature in this field is written in this language 9 (Hamel, 2007). ...
Article
Qualitative research is fundamental to understanding the nature and complexity of human phenomena. While cultural and psychometric validations exist for quantitative tools, the same cannot be said of qualitative ones. There are other many challenges when conducting a multinational qualitative study, which includes different cultural and linguistic ‘biases’. This paper presents some key issues researchers may encounter when designing and developing multinational and multicultural qualitative studies, and also provides some strategies to overcome difficulties and ensure rigor.
... Once again, these results demonstrated that English has undoubtedly become the global lingua franca in the scientific research literature. Consequently, international communication has moved to a clear supremacy of English in this field, and more than 75% of the published documents in the social sciences and humanities and well over 90% in the natural sciences are written in English [54]. ...
Article
Full-text available
A bibliometric analysis using the Scopus database was performed to investigate the research documents published from 1990 to 2019 in scientific sources related to molybdenum in drinking water and determine the quantitative characteristics of the research in this period. The results from the analysis revealed that the number of publications was maintained at a regular production of around 5 papers per year until 2009, followed by a fast linear increase in the production in the period from 2010 to 2016 (29 papers in 2016), but the scientific production regarding this topic was reduced in 2017 and 2018 to recover the production obtained in 2016 once again in 2019. The total contribution of the three most productive countries (USA, China and India, respectively) accounted for around 50% of the total number of publications. Environmental Science was the most common subject (51.4% contribution), followed by Chemistry (26.7% contribution). The research efforts targeted toward the search for technical solutions for molybdenum removal from water are not as important as the ones focused on the identification of molybdenum-polluted water bodies and the analysis of the health effects of the intake of molybdenum. Nevertheless, examples of technological treatments to remove molybdenum from the aqueous solution include the use of adsorption and ion exchange; coagulation, flocculation and precipitation followed by filtration; membrane technologies and biological treatments.
... Furthermore, with a pioneering study on the CoI the time interval for searches applied in the current study was determined as starting from 2000 through to 2020. Only English language publications were included since most major journals accept English language articles and it is one of the most widely used languages worldwide in the circulation of scientific information (Ammon, 2011;González-Alcaide et al., 2012;Hamel, 2007). ...
Article
Full-text available
Full Issue
... Since the technology outbreak, globalization, and software development in Computer Science, the English language has become part of political and economic confluence. In the twentieth century, high investments in education were made by developed nations, and the hegemony of the English language was certified as the Science language (Hamel, 2007). Not surprisingly, English dominated the publications about microalgae-fungi consortia in our results (96.3%). ...
Article
Full-text available
The utilization of microalgae and fungi on an industrial scale is a challenge for researchers. Based on the question “how fungi have contributed to microalgae research?,” we verified the scientific trends on microalgae-fungi consortia focused on biofuels production by searching for articles on the Web of Science and Scopus databases through the terms “microalgae*” or phytoplankton and “fung*.” We found 1,452 articles published between 1950 and 2020; since 2006, the publication numbers have increased rapidly. The articles were published in 12 languages, but most were written in English (96.3%). Among 72 countries, China (360 articles), USA (344), and Germany (155) led the publication rank. Among the 10 most-prolific authors, 8 were Chinese, like 5 of the most-productive institutions, whereas the National Cheng Kung University was on the top of the list. The sources that published the most on the subject were: Bioresource Technology (96), PLoS ONE (28), and Science of the Total Environment (26). The keyword analysis emphasized the magnitude of applications in microalgae-fungi consortia research. Confirming this research question, biofuels appeared as a research trend, especially biodiesel, biogas, and related terms like lipid, lipid accumulation, anaerobic digestion, and biogas upgrading. For 70 years, articles have been published, where China and the United States seem to dominate the research scenario, and biodiesel is the main biofuel derived from this consortium. However, microalgae-based biofuel biorefinery is still a bottleneck on an industrial scale. Recent environmental challenges, such as greenhouse gas mitigation, can be a promising field for that microalgae-fungi application.
... English has undoubtedly turned into the global lingua franca and there has never in the past been a language spoken more widely in the world than English is today [106]. Consequently, international communication has moved to a clear pre-eminence of English, especially in the field of scientific research, where more than 75% of the published documents in the social sciences and humanities and well over 90% in the natural sciences are written in English [107]. However, due to China's fast development in research production and its high percentage of national journals published in Chinese, the world is experiencing, for the first time in more than a century, a decrease in the worldwide percentage of active academic journals published in English and an increase in the percentage of documents written in Chinese [108]. ...
Article
Full-text available
A bibliometric analysis based on the Scopus database was carried out to summarize the global research related to selenium in drinking water from 1990 to 2021 and identify the quantitative characteristics of the research in this period. The results from the analysis revealed that the number of accumulated publications followed a quadratic growth, which confirmed the relevance this research topic is gaining during the last years. High research efforts have been invested to define safe selenium content in drinking water, since the insufficient or excessive intake of selenium and the corresponding effects on human health are only separated by a narrow margin. Some important research features of the four main technologies most frequently used to remove selenium from drinking water (coagulation, flocculation and precipitation followed by filtration; adsorption and ion exchange; membrane-based processes and biological treatments) were compiled in this work. Although the search of technological options to remove selenium from drinking water is less intensive than the search of solutions to reduce and eliminate the presence of other pollutants, adsorption was the alternative that has received the most attention according to the research trends during the studied period, followed by membrane technologies, while biological methods require further research efforts to promote their implementation.
... This study consisted of a structured mapping review of peerreviewed scientific literature published in English or Chinese on the topic of human mortality in tropical cyclones. The majority of peer-reviewed literature is published in English, [53][54][55] but publication volume in Chinese has increased rapidly. 56 (Table 1). ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Tropical cyclones are a recurrent, lethal hazard. Climate change, demographic, and development trends contribute to increasing hazards and vulnerability. This mapping review of articles on tropical cyclone mortality assesses geographic publication patterns, research gaps, and priorities for investigation to inform evidence-based risk reduction. Methods A mapping review of published scientific articles on tropical cyclone-related mortality indexed in PubMed and EMBASE (English) and SINOMED and CNKI (Chinese), focusing on research approach, location, and storm information, was conducted. Results were compared with data on historical tropical cyclone disasters. Findings A total of 150 articles were included, 116 in English and 34 in Chinese. Nine cyclones accounted for 61% of specific event analyses. The United States (US) reported 0.76% of fatalities but was studied in 51% of articles, 96% in English and four percent in Chinese. Asian nations reported 90.4% of fatalities but were studied in 39% of articles, 50% in English and 50% in Chinese. Within the US, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania experienced 4.59% of US tropical cyclones but were studied in 24% of US articles. Of the 12 articles where data were collected beyond six months from impact, 11 focused on storms in the US. Climate change was mentioned in eight percent of article abstracts. Interpretation Regions that have historically experienced high mortality from tropical cyclones have not been studied as extensively as some regions with lower mortality impacts. Long-term mortality and the implications of climate change have not been extensively studied nor discussed in most settings. Research in highly impacted settings should be prioritized.
Article
Full-text available
Latin America and linguistic globalisation The outlook of geopolitical linguistics is discussed at present at the two poles of the multilingual world continuum. On the one hand, the warning launched by Hale (1992), Krauss (1992) and others regarding the possible death of 90% of the languages of the world by the end of the twenty-first century as a result of linguistic globalisation has strengthened a series of movements and concerns for the most endangered languages. Some of them relate the dangers of a reduction in biodiversity with those involved in linguistic diversity (compare Harmon 1996; Skutnabb-Kangas 2000). In general they are champions of an unlimited defence of all languages of the world, arguing along with Fishman (1991; 2001) and others that the disappearance of any language constitutes an irreparable loss of global linguistic treasures. They particularly defend the fundamental linguistic rights of all citizens of the world to be educated and to have access to other public services in their own language (Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson 1994; Skutnabb-Kangas 2000). At the other end of the continuum we find the debate on the worldwide spread of English: for the first time in the history of humankind one single language has been globalised not only among an international elite, but on a massive basis, posing a threat to many other languages' space. The danger represented by the expansion of English is, however, indirect for the languages at risk of extinction in other latitudes, except for those found in Anglophone countries, due to a general reordering of the complex linguistic mosaic in many countries and regions.
Article
This book provides crucial reading for students and researchers of world Englishes. It is an insightful and provocative study of the forms and functions of English in Asia, its acculturation and nativization, and the innovative dimensions of Asian creativity.
Article
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.