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.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Keywords:English as an international language Communities of practice Rhetorical move analysis Academic Englishes Task-based approach EAP teaching Multiliteracies a b s t r a c t Drawing on bibliometric methods (citation analysis and content analysis) and literature review, this paper offers some critical reflections of how genre analysis has been used, applied, expanded and refined to address the challenges of a culturally and linguistically diverse academic and research community. The first reflection opens with a brief review of the privileged status of English as the international language of academic and research communication to discuss contrasting scholarly positions that regard 'Englishization' as either 'help' or 'hindrance'. The second reflection focuses on rhetorical move analysis, an aspect of genre theory that to date has been little considered outside ESP/EAP traditions of genre analysis. It discusses how move analysis, in cross-fertilization with various theoretical/analytical frameworks, can add to our understanding of the way L2 academic English writers accomplish meso-and micro-rhetorical manoeuvres. The final reflection touches upon the impact of internationalization and research assessment policies on the current knowledge exchange, dissemination and publication practices to emphasize the value of the Swalesian task-based approach and advocate a multiliterate rhetorical consciousness-raising pedagogy. The paper concludes with some suggestions for future genre research and proposes ways of articulating cogent language instructional intervention to empower members of bi-/multiliterate academic and research communities professionally.The opening chapter of Swales' (1990) Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings informs its readers that the main aim of the book is pedagogical, namely, to offer an approach to the teaching of academic and research English. Doubtless, Swales' seminal work has an invaluable pedagogical orientation, but it also invites its readers to gain comprehensive insights into the three influential concepts underlying genre theory: discourse community, genre and language learning task. Drawing on these concepts as an argumentative scaffold, the broad aim of this paper is to offer some critical reflections on how genre analysis has been used, applied, expanded and refined to address the challenges of a culturally and linguistically heterogeneous research world.The current sociocultural context is unprecedentedly complex. It is marked by the development of computerized societies and, at an epistemological level, by the changing nature of knowledge. It places emphasis on the local and the contingent, contests homogeneity while advocating heterogeneity and diversity, and claims the existence of a multiplicity of orders (Lyotard, 1979;Sarup, 1993). Within this context, today's academic and research communication, as a socioculturally