English as the Language for Academic Publication: on Equity, Disadvantage and ‘Non-Nativeness’ as a Red Herring

Abstract

Within the fields of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP), the question of whether English as an Additional Language (EAL) scholars are disadvantaged by the pressure to publish in English continues to be debated. In this paper, I challenge this orthodoxy, raising questions about the evidence upon which it is based. Within a framework of ‘verbal hygiene’, I will argue that the attention accorded to ‘non-nativeness’ may be disproportionate to its significance for publication success. I conclude by proposing some reorientations for researchers and practitioners in the field that encompass non-linguistic structures of inequity.

The linguistic disadvantage of scholars who write in English as an additional language: Myth or reality

“…In my view, there is a certain set of challenges in writing for publication which are shared by EAL and L1 writers, but EAL writers have an additional set of linguistic challenges, which do not apply (to such an extent) to L1 writers. These challenges may or may not be the 'key variable determining publishing success' (Hultgren, 2018); such variables are likely to depend on the individual case. Hyland, while acknowledging at certain points the additional linguistic challenges of EAL writers, at the same time argues that there is only one set of challenges, which is shared by both groups.…”

Preliminary evidence of linguistic bias in academic reviewing

“…For example, Flowerdew (2019) and Yen and Hung (2019) argued that linguistic injustice in academic publishing does exist and is worth attention. Conversely, Hultgren (2019) agreed with Hyland (2016a , b ) that the idea of linguistic injustice detracts from more important injustices in academic publishing and, at worst, borders on language policing or “verbal hygiene”. Perhaps more importantly, given the stated need for empirical data, several recent studies have offered observational data that supports or challenges the claim that there is linguistic injustice ( Table 1 offers a rough summary of the most relevant studies that we are aware of).…”

“…Similarly, it is not known to what extent authors may perceive second-language publishing as difficult not because of actual difficulty, but because a traditional perspective that focuses on nonnative-ness as a “deficit” may discourage scholars working in a second language and train them to perceive working in that language as difficult. Authors’ subjective perception of difficulty, as self-reported in interviews or surveys, may not necessarily translate into a reality of less publication success (see, e.g., Hultgren, 2019 ). (Our meaning here is not to blame such scholars for difficulties they may encounter, but to acknowledge the potential harms of a “deficit” view of scholars working in a second language—an issue discussed at greater length by Hultgren, 2019 , among others.)…”

Perceived Challenges to Anglophone Publication at Three Universities in Chile

“…Hultgren claims that wealth is a key factor in a nation's likelihood to participate in global knowledge production. Obviously, gross inequities exist-only 10 countries produce more than half the world's academic output, while the remaining 221 countries produce the rest [27] (p. 8). She concludes that "the overriding factor in explaining this inequity appears to be, not whether or not English is a research writer's first language, but the resources and networks that are available to them" (p. 2).…”