No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Academic Publishing and World Englishes
Abstract
English is undisputedly the primary language of academic publishing, used now by a majority of internationally indexed journals. This dominance in the academic publishing world exerts great pressure on academic researchers to learn English and, often, to conform to a particular variety of English. This entry reviews the growing body of research on world Englishes and academic publishing, including the history of English in this domain, research into inequities caused by English's dominance, the use and varieties of English in academic publication, and suggested actions for creating a more equitable publishing landscape.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
The rise of English as the world's main international language has prompted a social justice agenda underpinned by an assumption that English causes or exacerbates inequality and injustice in the world. In this position statement, I set out to problematise and complexify this assumption, suggesting that English is neither a "Tyrannosaurus Rex", a "Cuckoo" nor a "Lingua Frankensteinia", but a "Red Herring", distracting attention away from the underlying causes of inequality. Within the theoretical framework of "verbal hygiene" (Cameron 1995, 2012a), and drawing on my own empirical work and that of others, I argue for widening the scope of global English and more broadly applied linguistics. I suggest that as socially committed applied linguists, we stand a better chance of solving "real-world problems" (Brumfit 1995: 27) if greater attention is accorded to systems of inequality that are not obviously language-based. I will suggest that a too narrow focus on linguistic injustice risks losing sight of the underlying non-linguistic conditions that produce this injustice. I conclude by suggesting some ways forward that centre on co-thinking language with political, social, economic, cultural and material conditions.
This article outlines findings from a case study investigating attitudes toward English as the dominant language of scientific research writing. Survey and interview data were collected from 55 Latin American health and life scientists and 7 North American scientific journal editors connected to an intensive scholarly writing for publication course. Study findings point to competing perceptions (scientists vs. editors) of fairness in the adjudication of Latin American scientists’ research at international scientific journals. Adopting a critical, plurilingual lens, I argue that these findings demand a space for more equity-driven pedagogies, policies, and reflective practices aimed at supporting the robust participation of plurilingual scientists who use English as an additional language (EAL). In particular, if equity is indeed a shared goal, there is a clear need for commitment to ongoing critical self-reflection on the part of scientific journal gatekeepers and research writing support specialists.
Conceptualizations of language errors, standards, norms and nativeness in English for research publication purposes: An analysis of journal submission guidelines Adherence to standards in English for research publication purposes (ERPP) can be a substantial barrier for second language (L2) writers and is an area of renewed debate in L2 writing research. This study presents a qualitative text analysis of author guidelines in 210 leading academic journals across 27 disciplines. It explores conceptualizations of language errors, standards, norms and nativeness in journal submission guidelines, and identifies key concepts related to so-called error-free writing. Findings indicate that most of the journal guidelines are inflexible in their acceptance of variant uses of English. Some guidelines state a requirement of meeting an unclear standard of good English, sometimes described as American or British English. Many guidelines specifically position L2 writers as deficient of native standards, which raises ethical considerations of access to publication in top journals. This study leads to a discussion of a need to re-conceptualize error-free writing in ERPP, and to decouple it from concepts such as nativeness. It focuses on a need to relax some author guidelines to encourage all authors to write using an English that can easily be understood by a broad, heterogeneous, global, and multilingual audience.
While the number of research articles written by non-native speakers of English and published in English-medium international journals is on the rise, little is known about the extent to which that trend may be affecting the way in which English is used in that genre. To address this gap, a corpus comprising 192 non-native English articles published in 8 different international journals, spanning two different time periods (2000–2005 and 2010–2015), was compared with a parallel native-speaker corpus from the same journals and of the exact same characteristics. Analysis of the various word and phrase lists generated by the corpora show that there are a number of lexical items used by non-native authors that are used significantly less by native speakers — if at all. The identified items were shown to be used by several different nationalities, and consistently attested in the majority of the journals sampled. Moreover, comparison between the two time periods reveals that all items have become increasingly accepted over the years. It is concluded that this exploratory study merely scratches the surface in terms of the extent of ELF that may be present in international academic publication. Directions for future research are suggested.
In light of the recent developments on the international publishing scene, increasingly dominated by L2 writers of English, the question of what is considered to be “good” and “acceptable” English calls for further research. This paper examines in what ways researchers describe the English used for research writing in their field. Interview data were collected from historians and computer scientists working in Finland and Sweden. Our analysis points towards some differences in the way researchers perceive “good” writing in English in their field, and what they themselves report to practice as (co-)authors, readers/reviewers, and proofreaders. The discrepancy between the ideals and realities of research writing in English was clear in the case of the historians. Our findings suggest that in research writing for publication, there is a pull towards some form of standard norm. This standard can be jointly negotiated during the writing, reviewing, and proofreading process. It may also develop in different directions in different disciplines, but it is likely to be based on the principles of understandability and clarity.
The aim of this research note is to introduce a new corpus that became freely available to researchers in 2016, the WrELFA corpus (Written English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings). WrELFA is the written component of the ELFA project directed by Anna Mauranen at the University of Helsinki; the spoken component of ELFA has been available since 2008. WrELFA consists of 1.5 million words drawn from three academic text types: unedited research papers (SciELF corpus), PhD examiner reports, and research blogs. The authors of the texts are academic users of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), and the texts have not undergone professional proofreading or checking by an English native speaker. As one of the international team of contributors to the SciELF sub-corpus, I will focus on this component of WrELFA, which comprises 150 research articles written in English by authors from ten different L1 backgrounds. To illustrate the interest of SciELF for research and ESP training, a brief analysis of enabling verbs (allow, enable, permit) is presented.
Many researchers in the developing world feel trapped in a vicious circle of neglect and -- some say -- prejudice by publishing barriers they claim doom good science to oblivion.
The paper argues for greater linguistic sensitivity in scientometric research, discussesBaldauf andJernudd,11–13 and raises issues of North/South, English/non-English imbalance in research communication. It then proposes a procedure for identifying native/non-native speaker status of authors in English periodical literature on textual evidence. Preliminary application to 623 articles is reported and evaluated. The Health Science NNS percentage was 23%; in Economics half that. In both there were few papers of Third World provenance, thus supportingBaldauf andJernudd. It is suggested that Scientometrics could contribute to the teaching of Research English, against a background of adjusting suspected imbalance.
This paper focuses on an issue attracting increasing attention: the possible disadvantage inflicted on non-Anglophone academics by the dominance of English in scientific publication and academic exchange. We critically review the evidence for linguistic disadvantage, noting some of its limitations, and critique the native/non-native distinction as a coarse and somewhat unsatisfactory criterion for distinguishing between the advantaged and disadvantaged. In the second part of the paper we report on an empirical survey of the attitudes of Spanish academics at the University of Zaragoza to the possible disadvantage they may experience in publishing in English, and we investigate determinants of these attitudes. Though the survey shows, as expected, that a majority do feel disadvantaged in academic publication relative to Anglophone scholars, it also indicates, we argue, that attitudes are more complex and multidimensional than the literature sometimes suggests. Self-reported language proficiency emerges as a significant determinant of attitudes. The final part of the paper discusses a number of proposed language planning interventions designed to redress linguistic disadvantage. We argue that some of the more radical of these are flawed or unfeasible and suggest that more modest measures have a greater likelihood of ameliorating the situation.
This book provides a rich and accessible account of genre studies by a world-renowned applied linguist. The hardback edition discusses today's research world, its various configurations of genres, and the role of English within the genres. Theoretical and methodological issues are explored, with a special emphasis on various metaphors of genre. The book is full of carefully worded detail and each chapter ends with suggestions for pedagogical practice. The volume closes with evaluations of contrastive rhetoric, applied corpus linguistics, and critical approaches to EAP. Research Genres provides a rich and scholarly account of this key area.
Whether non-native English speaking students (NNES) are fundamentally disadvantaged by their NNES status is a major concern in English for Specific Purposes, English for Academic Purposes, and English for Research Publication Purposes. To investigate this question, we present a comparative study of six early career scholars—three “native” and three “non-native”—who are actively publishing in international peer-reviewed journals. Findings indicate that these scholars shared the same basic experiences in writing for publication, and that the “non-native” scholars did not feel significantly disadvantaged due to their NES status. These results question the usefulness of binary NES–NNES distinctions in explaining the complex activity of publishing for academic purposes.This is the abstract we would like to use for the printed version of the chapter.
The dominance of English in global academic publishing has raised questions of communicative inequality and the possible ‘linguistic injustice’ against an author’s mother tongue. Native English speakers are thought to have an advantage as they acquire the language naturalistically while second language users must invest more time, effort and money into formally learning it and may experience greater difficulties when writing in English. Surveys reveal that English as an Additional Language authors often believe that editors and referees are prejudiced against them for any non-standard language. In this paper I critically review the evidence for linguistic injustice through a survey of the literature and interviews with scholars working in Hong Kong. I argue that framing publication problems as a crude native vs non-native polarisation not only draws on an outmoded respect for ‘native speaker’ competence but serves to demoralizes EAL writers and marginalize the difficulties experienced by novice L1 English academics. The paper, then, is a call for a more inclusive and balanced view of academic publishing.
Academic publication now dominates the lives of academics across the globe who must increasingly submit their research for publication in high profile English language journals to move up the career ladder. The dominance of English in academic publishing, however, has raised questions of communicative inequality and the possible ‘linguistic injustice’ against an author's mother tongue. Native English speakers are thought to have an advantage as they acquire the language naturalistically while second language users must invest more time, effort and money into formally learning it and may experience greater difficulties when writing in English. Attitude surveys reveal that English as an Additional Language authors often believe that editors and referees are prejudiced against them for any non-standard language. In this paper, I critically review the evidence for linguistic injustice through a survey of the literature and interviews with scholars working in Hong Kong. I argue that framing publication problems as a crude Native vs non-Native polarization not only draws on an outmoded respect for ‘Native speaker’ competence but serves to demoralizes EAL writers and marginalize the difficulties experienced by novice L1 English academics. The paper, then, is a call for a more inclusive and balanced view of academic publishing.
This paper will show, on the basis of valid and reasonably representative data, that even in applied linguistics (where it might be expected least of all) the predominance of a single language, English, in international scientific communication excludes contributions from various non-Anglophone quarters and, consequently, contributes to skewed scientific development, especially neglecting Japanese and Chinese, but also French, German, Italian and Russian approaches (because of serious linguistic barriers and refusal to participate in linguistically “unfair” scientific communication, respectively). The paper will also submit proposals on how the situation could be improved and problems be mitigated such as, among others, regular linguistic support offered by publishers and conference organizers.
Over the last few decades a growing number of multilingual scholars have shown an increasing interest in having the results of their research published in English-language journals. Many of these researchers, however, experience difficulties in producing effective research articles (RAs) to meet the expectations of their international disciplinary communities. In this paper we report some of the results obtained from the analysis of the responses to a large-scale online survey [http://eneida.unileon.es/eneidaquestionnaire.php] which was administered to Ph.D.-holding researchers from various disciplines, affiliated to five Spanish teaching and research institutions. The results we present here are related to Spanish scholars of Medicine, a field of research in which researchers are in need of specialized assistance in English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP). We focus on their motivations for reporting their research in English, their writing strategies, past publishing experiences and future needs for training in ERPP. The findings revealed an overall positive attitude towards writing in English, although difficulties with specific discourse features and with the most challenging sections and aspects of the RA were also identified. The information derived from this survey should allow us to design training materials that can be of assistance to multilingual scholars of medicine.
This overview of the current state of English for specific purposes (ESP) begins by surveying ongoing debates on key topics: needs assessment and its goals, specificity in instructional methods, and the role of subject knowledge in instructor expertise. Two strands of current theory and research are next surveyed, namely, genre theory and corpus-enhanced genre studies, and critical pedagogy and ethnographies, followed by examples of research and theory-informed pedagogical strategies for literacy and spoken discourse. Topics in need of further inquiry are suggested.
Paralleling the pluralistic conceptualizations of language as found in world Englishes and English as a lingua franca (ELF), pluralizing language use – that is, accepting deviations from standard Anglo-American written English – has been advocated in the field of second language (L2) writing. However, the question of how this pluralization is or can be achieved remains underexplored, particularly at the level of lexis and grammar, which has traditionally been an important focus for readers of L2 writers’ texts. This question becomes contentious in high-stakes academic writing, which entails negotiation between L2 writers and gatekeepers (editors, copyeditors) who are expected to ensure academic sophistication and rigor of published texts. This article addresses theoretical issues related to differences in language use by critically analyzing the authors’ own process of copyediting nonnative English writers’ manuscripts prepared for a book publication. It examines the role of literacy brokering (textual mediation by editors, proofreaders, and others) at the lexicogrammatical level in academic text production. We found that despite sympathy for an approach that would pluralize English usage, the textual mediation of lexical and grammatical items was often driven by native-speaker intuition and was idiosyncratic. This idiosyncrasy further poses skepticism about the applicability of both error-oriented approaches to and pluralistic theories about L2 writing to copyediting in high-stakes academic publishing. We conclude that pervasive ideologies and accepted practices in academic publishing make it difficult to pluralize academic writing at the level of lexis and grammar. We conclude with suggestions for advocacy, research, and practice for L2 writing scholars and literacy brokers.
Intercultural studies have shown the existence of rhetorical variation in the prevalent discourse practices of multilingual scholars and those of English-speaking scholars. In this paper, we examine comparatively the typical rhetorical practices used in the Introduction section of 80 research articles written in English and 80 in Spanish in four disciplines in the fields of Health Sciences and Humanities/Social Sciences. We particularly examine how writers present their research studies in Move 3 (Swales, 2004), with a special focus on those steps that add promotional value to one’s research. The results revealed that, within the same field, the English texts present a higher degree of rhetorical promotion than the Spanish texts in each of the disciplines analysed. However, when comparing the two broad fields, the Spanish texts in Health Sciences present a higher degree of promotion than the English (and Spanish) texts in Humanities/Social Sciences. This indicates that, in shaping the promotional features of the (sub)genre in question, when professional and national cultural variables interact simultaneously, cultural factors tend to override the influence of disciplinary context. However, when broad fields of knowledge are compared, it is the disciplinary conventions in specific professional subcultures that seem to prevail over national cultural factors.
Despite a growing body of research on multilingual scholars' publication practices in several countries, the little research available on Canadian contexts has been limited to the predominantly French-speaking province of Québec. This gap in research is somewhat surprising given the significance of Canada's official bilingualism as a defining feature of Canadian identity and governmental support to French-medium and bilingual universities outside Québec. To investigate how francophone Canadian researchers in French-minority contexts meet pressures for publication and public engagement in English and French, we adopt a dialogical self-case study design and compare on our own experiences as applied linguists located in the same regional context and yet working in two markedly distinct institutional environments, a unilingual English university and bilingual university. Reflecting on our biliteracy development and bilingual publication practices, we attempt to reveal the social conditions that influence our individual language choices and enable (or constrain) our ability to sustain our commitment to disseminating knowledge in both English and French. We identify the challenges of, and strategies for, biliterate academic work, and show the key role of language-minority institutional spaces and continued governmental support in creating enabling contexts for biliteracy.
Non-canonical (NC) grammar from a corpus of 14 Best Paper award winners in software and hardware engineering research published since 2006 in IEEE Transactions is presented and analyzed. Two independent raters, using a standard comprehensive grammar of English as a benchmark, identified the NC usage. Most (co)-authors in the corpus report themselves to be non-native speakers of English (NNSEs), but three of the 14 papers have a self-described native speaker of English as a co-author. The majority of the NC usage falls into patterns which match those reported in spoken English communication among NNSEs. The appearance of simplified grammar (e.g. dropping of articles, lack of concord in number marking between subject and predicate) in published research that has attained Best Paper status in engineering’s most prestigious journals may indicate that the gate-keeper role in engineering now reflects the predominance of non-native speakers in the field. Emailed and personal exchanges with editors and reviewers, and data about the international nature of the engineering industry, are presented to throw light on this phenomenon. The paper closes with advice, based on the corpus analysis and findings, for engineering researchers concerning manuscript preparation, as well as advice on pedagogy for teachers of engineering communication.
This study investigates the rhetorical organisation of English and Chinese research article introductions in the field of educational psychology using Swales’s (1990, 2004) framework of move analysis. A corpus of 40 research articles (20 Chinese and 20 English) was selected. The English research articles, written by first-language English speakers, were selected from The Journal of Educational Psychology while the Chinese research articles, written by first-language Chinese speakers, were selected from 心理發展與教育 (Psychological Development and Education). The findings reveal that English and Chinese research article introductions generally employ the three moves (i.e., Move 1, Move 2 and Move 3) as outlined by Swales (1990, 2004). Swales’s Create a Research Space (CARS) model however, could not account for certain rhetorical strategies found in the two sets of introductions. English and Chinese research article introductions differ in the extent to which the moves and steps are used in the introductions. That is, generally speaking, the rhetorical moves and steps were employed in fewer Chinese introductions compared to the English. It is proposed that an analytic-synthetic approach can be used to teach academic writing to Chinese ESL students, encouraging them to engage in genre-analysis tasks before doing their own writing.
Although some consideration has been given to the manner in which academic discourse is culture-bound, how the “nondiscursive” conventions and requirements of academic publishing can serve exclusionary functions has not been adequately explored. Meeting the latter requirements is contingent upon the availability of certain material resources. Reflecting on personal experience in trying to meet such requirements from an under-developed region, the author shows the manner in which they serve to exclude Third World scholars from the academic publication process. Though this detachment from Western academic literacy enables the development of an alternative academic culture, it can also lead to the marginalization of Third World scholarship. The exclusion of Third World scholars impoverishes the production of knowledge not only in the Third World, but internationally. Therefore the article finally considers steps that may be taken to ensure a more democratic and mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge.
The increasing domination of English as the world’s leading medium of international professional communication has begun to impact English for Academic Purposes programs. Specifically, questions arise as to whether English is becoming too successful. This paper reviews several of the resulting ideological challenges to EAP. Although not all of these challenges are accepted as well-founded, the paper argues that resistance to the ‘triumphalism’ of English is also a responsibility of EAP teachers. This resistance can be encouraged by further research into the academic registers of languages other than English, by support for local-language scholarly publications, and by using the current controversies as consciousness-raising exercises in EAP classes for international graduate students.
In this paper, I first refer to the center-periphery dichotomy in terms of scientific output, placing emphasis upon the relation that exists between science and technology development, on the one hand, and social and economic development, on the other. I then analyze the main problems faced by most peripheral journals and the role nation states play in scientific activities in developing countries. I then address issues such as the world power structures, the social organization of developing countries, growing North/South disparities and the question of collaborative research. The discursive (i.e., language related) and non-discursive problems faced by researchers in periphery countries and the main initiatives that have recently been taken to try to solve the stark disparities that exist in the world of scholarly publishing are also discussed. I finally present a proposal, the aim of which is to suggest ways that could help scientists in periphery countries become fully integrated members of the worldwide network of science and would also contribute to the promotion of scientific multilingualism, a means for science to be truly universal, as it should be. I conclude by arguing that science, technology and publication form a triad which is essential for the survival of developing nations, and that, although the complete elimination of inequities in the world of scholarship is unlikely, progress could be achieved if there were a universal will (i.e., a worldwide will at the institutional, governmental and intergovernmental levels) to redress the current North/South imbalance.
The use of English as an international language of science (EILS) is by now well documented; depending on one’s orientation, English may be seen as a neutral lingua franca or it may be seen more insidiously as a dominating and overpowering force. This paper explores these co-existing roles of EILS through various perspectives. It begins by outlining conversations regarding EILS found in the literature of applied linguistics and the scientific community. The paper then turns to the perspective of international graduate students studying at an American university through a small-scale questionnaire and focus group interview study that attempts to understand these students’ attitudes toward English and its role in scientific communication. Findings from the study are discussed in light of published conversations of EILS and implications for an EAP classroom that aims to recognize the dual roles of English in scientific communication.
With English becoming increasingly dominant as the international language of research and publication, there is a need to empirically investigate the question of international scholarly publication in English on the part of non-native speakers of English. This paper presents the results of a large-scale survey concerning publication in international refereed journals in English by Hong Kong Chinese academics who have Cantonese as their first language. The survey seeks answers to the following questions: What exposure to English have these Hong Kong scholars had? What are their attitudes towards publishing in English? What are their problems? What are their strategies for successful publishing? And what change to the language of publication, if any, do they see accompanying the reversion of sovereignty over Hong Kong from Britain to China?
Writing for international publication: The perception of Chinese doctoral researchers
- Li Y.