Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Dominance of English in academic publishing raises issues of ‘linguistic injustice’.

  • Mixed evidence from studies of author perceptions, texts and editorial decisions.

  • Assumptions of Native speaker advantage and primacy of language unfounded.

  • Situatedness and isolation key factors in publishing success.

  • Geographical location, publishing experience and collaborators have more impact.

Abstract

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.

Section snippets

Global publishing and disadvantage

On the face of it, the expansion of international publishing to all corners of the planet is a positive development, both for academics and for developing nations seeking to become part of the “knowledge economy.” Globalization offers greater opportunities for increased scholarly dialogue by broadening the corpus of academic literature, providing new avenues for research and collaboration, and opening more channels for reporting location-specific research. The greater participation of

EAL writer perceptions

It is certainly the case that many EAL authors report a sense of inequality compared with NES scholars when writing in English. Surveys of Polish (Duszak & Lewkowicz, 2008), Slovakian (Kourilová, 1998), Mexican (Hanauer & Englander, 2011), Spanish (Ferguson, Pérez-Llantada, & Plo, 2011) and southern/eastern European (Lillis & Curry, 2010) researchers reveal that many EAL authors feel some sense of disadvantage relative to Anglophone scholars. Almost 80% of the Mainland Chinese doctoral

Non-Anglophone authors: Texts and practices

The substantial literature reporting EAL authors’ perceptions is not matched by studies of submitted texts or the processes used to create them. While several studies have found non-standard uses in EAL texts, the fact they are necessarily small scale and cover a range of different contexts and disciplines makes it difficult to generalize about issues of equity. They show, however, that academic writing in English can present considerable challenges to non-Anglophone scholars, although these do

Problematic assumption 1: The Native/non-Native divide

While the need for a certain proficiency in a foreign language inevitably creates an added burden for authors, there are difficulties in framing linguistic disadvantage in terms of a Native/non-Native divide. The Native speaker's advantage is attributed to a combination of “natural” acquisition and the idea that Native speakers own and control their mother tongue. The term, however, has been hotly debated since it was introduced by Bloomfield in the 1930s (e.g., Love & Ansaldo, 2010). Davies

Problematic assumption 2: The primacy of language

While the stereotype of non-Native speaker is frequently invoked to explain the vulnerability of novice EAL writers in the review process, non-discursive physical and financial barriers may well be greater than linguistic ones (e.g., Wood, 2001). The degree of training and experience in scientific writing, geographical location, or even the number and type of collaborators, may be more powerful determinants of publication success. Two key factors here are those of situatedness and isolation.

Non-Anglophone authors in international journals

Despite all the problems, more non-Anglophone researchers are writing successfully for publication than ever before, outnumbering NESs in many fields. In applied linguistics and language teaching, the increase seems particularly marked. Swales (2004, p. 41), for example, shows “a steady and welcome decline” in the dominance of papers by U.S. authors in TESOL Quarterly, while Hewings (2002) observes a doubling of the articles originating outside the United States and UK in English for Specific

Is there linguistic injustice in gatekeeping practices?

So where does this leave claims about linguistic bias? Do editors and reviewers really stigmatize L2 authors? It is certainly the case that many journal editors have reacted to the surge of non-Anglophone submissions with some alarm. This comment from the editors of Oral Oncology expresses the wider concern:

An emerging problem facing all journals is the increasing number of submissions from non-English-speaking parts of the world, where the standard of written English may fall below the

Some final observations

In this paper I have sought to raise some questions about a pervasive view which asserts that EAL scholars are disadvantaged in the cut-throat competitive world of academic publishing by virtue of their status as second language writers. In recent years this view has gained the privileged position of an unchallenged orthodoxy, so that many EAL novice writers automatically invoke the stereotype of “non-Native speaker” when finding themselves vulnerable in the review process (Huang, 2010). It is,

Ken Hyland is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Director of the Centre for Applied English Studies at the University of Hong Kong. He is well known for his work on academic discourse and EAP and has published over 180 articles and 23 books on these subjects.

References (95)

  • H. Gosden

    Research writing and NNSs: From the editors

    Journal of Second Language Writing

    (1992)
  • H. Gosden

    Success in research article writing and revision: A social-constructionist perspective

    English for Specific Purposes

    (1995)
  • H. Gosden

    ‘Why not give us the full story?’: Functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers

    Journal of English for Academic Purposes

    (2003)
  • J. Heng Hartse et al.

    Pluralizing English? Variation in high-stakes academic texts and challenges of copyediting

    Journal of Second Language Writing

    (2014)
  • J.C. Huang

    Publishing and learning writing for publication in English: Perspectives of NNES PhD students in science

    Journal of English for Academic Purposes

    (2010)
  • H. Kobayashi et al.

    L1/L2/L3 writing development: Longitudinal case study of a Japanese multicompetent writer

    Journal of Second Language Writing

    (2013)
  • Y. Li

    Writing for international publication: The perception of Chinese doctoral researchers

    Asian Journal of English Language Teaching

    (2002)
  • Y. Li

    A doctoral student of physics writing for publication: A sociopolitically-oriented case study

    English for Specific Purposes

    (2006)
  • C.K. Loi

    Research article introductions in Chinese and English: A comparative genre-based study

    Journal of English for Academic Purposes

    (2010)
  • N. Love et al.

    The native speaker and the mother tongue

    Language Sciences

    (2010)
  • P. Mungra et al.

    Peer review process in medical research publications: Language and content comments

    English for specific purposes

    (2010)
  • W. Rozycki et al.

    Non-canonical grammar in best paper award winners in engineering

    English for Specific Purposes

    (2013)
  • F. Salager-Meyer

    Scientific publishing in developing countries: Challenges for the future

    Journal of English for Academic Purposes

    (2008)
  • C. Scully et al.

    Editorial: Publishing in English for non-native speakers

    Oral Oncology

    (2006)
  • M.R. Shirey

    Building scholarly writing capacity in the doctor of nursing practice program

    Journal of Professional Nursing

    (2013)
  • C. Tardy

    The role of English in scientific communication: “Lingua franca” or “Tyrannosaurus rex”?

    Journal of English for Academic Purposes

    (2004)
  • C. Aitchison et al.

    ‘Tough love and tears’: Learning doctoral writing in the sciences

    Higher Education Research & Development

    (2012)
  • U. Ammon

    German or English? The problems of language choice experienced by German-speaking scientists

  • C. Badenhorst et al.

    Beyond deficit: Graduate student research-writing pedagogies

    Teaching in Higher Education

    (2015)
  • J.R. Benfield et al.

    The language of science

    European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

    (2000)
  • C. Berkenkotter et al.

    Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power

    (1995)
  • B-C. Björk et al.

    Scientific journal publishing: Yearly volume and open access availability

    Information Research

    (2009)
  • M.D. Bould et al.

    National representation in the anaesthesia literature: A bibliometric analysis of highly cited anaesthesia journals

    Anaesthesia

    (2010)
  • J. Cameron et al.

    Demystifying academic writing: Reflections on emotions, know-how and academic identity

    Journal of Geography in Higher Education

    (2009)
  • A.S. Canagarajah

    “Nondiscursive” requirements in academic publishing, material resources of periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production

    Written Communication

    (1996)
  • A.S. Canagarajah

    Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations

    (2013)
  • C.P. Casanave et al.

    Introduction: Issues in writing for publication

  • S. Cho

    Challenges of entering discourse communities through publishing in English: Perspectives of nonnative-speaking doctoral students in the United States of America

    Journal of Language, Identity, and Education

    (2004)
  • A. Davies

    The native speaker: Myth and reality

    (2003)
  • A.T. El Malik et al.

    Publishing research in a second language: The case of Sudanese contributors to international medical journals

    Journal of English for Academic Purposes

    (2008)
  • K. Englander

    Revision of scientific manuscripts by nonnative-English-speaking scientists in response to journal editors’ language criticism of the language

    Journal of Applied Linguistics

    (2006)
  • K. Englander et al.

    Acknowledging or denying membership: Reviewers’ responses to non-Anglophone scientists’ manuscripts

    Discourse Studies

    (2011)
  • E. Ernst et al.

    Reviewer bias: A blinded experimental study

    Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine

    (1994)
  • P. Escudero et al.

    Reinventing the Native speaker: or ‘What you never wanted to know about the Native speaker so never dared to ask’

  • G. Ferguson et al.

    English as an international language of scientific publication: A study of attitudes

    World Englishes

    (2011)
  • J. Flowerdew

    Attitudes of journal editors to non-native speaker contributions

    TESOL Quarterly

    (2001)
  • J. Flowerdew

    The non-Anglophone scholar on the periphery of scholarly publication

    AILA Review

    (2007)
  • Cited by (282)

    • Discoursal scholarly identity in research writing

      2023, Journal of Second Language Writing
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Ken Hyland is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Director of the Centre for Applied English Studies at the University of Hong Kong. He is well known for his work on academic discourse and EAP and has published over 180 articles and 23 books on these subjects.

    View full text