“…Alongside the above arguments in support of the monochrome view of English for science, there is also a folk belief held by some scientists (and others) that English is somehow the best language for communicating science (Flowerdew & Habibie, 2021), because it is purportedly more logical, clearer, more concise, and has a larger vocabulary and/or simpler grammatical system. The following quotation from an interview with an editor of a scientific journal conducted by Corcoran (2019, p. 552) is typical of this view: When I've been to World Fairs or museums with translations of different languages side by side, I'm often impressed that the English one is the shortest one.…”
Section: The Standardised Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(Cargill & O'Connor, 2013; Glasman‐Deal, 2009; Mogull, 2017). Each of these sections can also be broken down into a series of stages and sub‐stages (referred to as moves and steps), as identified in the seminal work of Swales (1990) with his create a research space (CaRS ) model for introductions and by numerous other scholars for the other sections (Flowerdew & Habibie, 2021). The benefits of IMRaD and the stereotypical moves and steps of the research article are that it provides a concise, clear, and predictable format that both writers and readers can follow, benefits that are also claimed for Standard English.…”
Section: The Standardised Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although scientific discourse has long been a focus of research interest, early examples being Kronick's (1962/1976) study of the history of scientific and technical periodicals, Latour and Woolgar's (1979/1986) study of the social world of the laboratory and the production of scientific texts, and Barber's (1962) linguistic study of scientific text, two works are usually cited as seminal in the field: St John's (1987) paper, Writing processes of Spanish scientists publishing in English , the topic of which is self‐explanatory, and Swales's (1990) monograph, Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings , best‐known for its theory of genre analysis as applied to the research article, but which also, in a penultimate chapter, presents ethnographically informed case studies of the research writing practices of three novice scholars. Since these early works, the field has grown rapidly, especially in the last decade, and ERPP now has its own international refereed journal, English for Research Publication Purposes Journal and introductory volume, Introducing English for Research Publication Purposes (Flowerdew & Habibie, 2021).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The reason for this growth in ERPP is the exponential increase in the numbers of scholars seeking to publish the results of their research internationally, not only scholars holding down academic positions, but also research students for whom publications are now more often than not needed in order to obtain an academic appointment and increasingly are also a condition of graduation. This increase is itself due to a number of global trends, including the worldwide massification of tertiary education; the marketisation of universities and the need for competitive publication output; the globalisation of scholarship, where in the past scholars tended to focus on their local community (and use their local language); national prestige attaching to governments with world‐class universities; the competitive nature of university systems based on league tables, with publication an important component; and career development increasingly based on publication record (Flowerdew & Habibie, 2021). All of this is facilitated by the worldwide web, which allows for instantaneous international scholarly communication and rapid research dissemination, and, of course, the English language, which provides an international lingua franca (Mauranen, 2018) as a vehicle for rapid research dissemination.…”
English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP) is a sub‐field of English for Academic Purposes (EAP), itself a sub‐field of applied linguistics. This article considers ERPP from a world Englishes perspective, considering the question as to what sort of English is appropriate for ERPP: the standardised model, as preferred at present, or a varietal, world Englishes, model, which would take more account of the fact that the majority of scholars publishing their work in English are no longer Anglophones, but use English as an additional language (EAL). The article is in two parts. In the first part, the case for ‘Standard English’ is presented, while the second part presents the case for a varietal model. In spite of some limited evidence of world Englishes encroaching into international journals, the latter remain fundamentally conservative and anchored in Standard English. Factors which might increase the use of world Englishes are outlined.
“…Alongside the above arguments in support of the monochrome view of English for science, there is also a folk belief held by some scientists (and others) that English is somehow the best language for communicating science (Flowerdew & Habibie, 2021), because it is purportedly more logical, clearer, more concise, and has a larger vocabulary and/or simpler grammatical system. The following quotation from an interview with an editor of a scientific journal conducted by Corcoran (2019, p. 552) is typical of this view: When I've been to World Fairs or museums with translations of different languages side by side, I'm often impressed that the English one is the shortest one.…”
Section: The Standardised Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(Cargill & O'Connor, 2013; Glasman‐Deal, 2009; Mogull, 2017). Each of these sections can also be broken down into a series of stages and sub‐stages (referred to as moves and steps), as identified in the seminal work of Swales (1990) with his create a research space (CaRS ) model for introductions and by numerous other scholars for the other sections (Flowerdew & Habibie, 2021). The benefits of IMRaD and the stereotypical moves and steps of the research article are that it provides a concise, clear, and predictable format that both writers and readers can follow, benefits that are also claimed for Standard English.…”
Section: The Standardised Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although scientific discourse has long been a focus of research interest, early examples being Kronick's (1962/1976) study of the history of scientific and technical periodicals, Latour and Woolgar's (1979/1986) study of the social world of the laboratory and the production of scientific texts, and Barber's (1962) linguistic study of scientific text, two works are usually cited as seminal in the field: St John's (1987) paper, Writing processes of Spanish scientists publishing in English , the topic of which is self‐explanatory, and Swales's (1990) monograph, Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings , best‐known for its theory of genre analysis as applied to the research article, but which also, in a penultimate chapter, presents ethnographically informed case studies of the research writing practices of three novice scholars. Since these early works, the field has grown rapidly, especially in the last decade, and ERPP now has its own international refereed journal, English for Research Publication Purposes Journal and introductory volume, Introducing English for Research Publication Purposes (Flowerdew & Habibie, 2021).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The reason for this growth in ERPP is the exponential increase in the numbers of scholars seeking to publish the results of their research internationally, not only scholars holding down academic positions, but also research students for whom publications are now more often than not needed in order to obtain an academic appointment and increasingly are also a condition of graduation. This increase is itself due to a number of global trends, including the worldwide massification of tertiary education; the marketisation of universities and the need for competitive publication output; the globalisation of scholarship, where in the past scholars tended to focus on their local community (and use their local language); national prestige attaching to governments with world‐class universities; the competitive nature of university systems based on league tables, with publication an important component; and career development increasingly based on publication record (Flowerdew & Habibie, 2021). All of this is facilitated by the worldwide web, which allows for instantaneous international scholarly communication and rapid research dissemination, and, of course, the English language, which provides an international lingua franca (Mauranen, 2018) as a vehicle for rapid research dissemination.…”
English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP) is a sub‐field of English for Academic Purposes (EAP), itself a sub‐field of applied linguistics. This article considers ERPP from a world Englishes perspective, considering the question as to what sort of English is appropriate for ERPP: the standardised model, as preferred at present, or a varietal, world Englishes, model, which would take more account of the fact that the majority of scholars publishing their work in English are no longer Anglophones, but use English as an additional language (EAL). The article is in two parts. In the first part, the case for ‘Standard English’ is presented, while the second part presents the case for a varietal model. In spite of some limited evidence of world Englishes encroaching into international journals, the latter remain fundamentally conservative and anchored in Standard English. Factors which might increase the use of world Englishes are outlined.
“…The output in academic English is also recognized and valued more than that produced in other less recognized or vernacular languages. I am using the modal verb can as this topic is still an open, debatable, and contradictory question in both ERPP and the broader discipline of applied linguistics (see Habibie & Hyland, 2019) as to when, where, why, and how the dominance/prevalence of English started (see Flowerdew & Habibie, 2022). However, the role of English, as an academic lingua franca, can also be considered as an example of social justice and social empowerment in the sense that English also affords many scholars, both Anglophone and multilingual, and especially novice scholars, the possibility to conjure up imagined academic communities and thought collectives beyond their spatiotemporal borders, to have their voices heard beyond disciplinary and cultural boundaries, and to disseminate their scholarship to a global intelligentsia.…”
Section: Socioeconomic (In)justice and Opportunity Structuresmentioning
This paper focuses on the concept of social (in)justice to examine and discuss some of the areas in the production and dissemination of knowledge in which the issue of social justice is significant and should be applied and considered. More specifically, it explores and advocates for some of the ways in which participation in, and contribution to, global scholarship can become a more socially just practice for academics, especially novice scholars and early-career researchers in the field of Applied Linguistics. It also highlights the role and agentive engagement of both established and junior members of academic communities as an important factor in demonopolizing and democratizing academic discourses and practices and making the mobilization of scholarship more diverse, inclusive, multivocal, and transformative.
Scholars who use English as an additional language (EAL) worldwide are under increasing pressure to write and publish in English due to the pervasive publish‐or‐perish culture and the growing dominance of English in academia. While previous studies have focused either on textual differences between EAL scholars' writing and native writers', or explored the difficulties EAL scholars meet and strategies they employ in the process, this paper examines a longitudinal case of a Chinese engineering scholar using online machine translation (MT) to support his academic writing and publishing in English. Drawing from the technology acceptance model as the theoretical background, this study shows that online MT can be a crucial support for scholars with limited English proficiency in the process of preparing a manuscript, submitting it and communicating with editors and reviewers. Frequently occurring problems in machine‐translated academic texts include improper use of technical terms, use of informal language and the inclusion of grammatical mistakes. However, in the last decade, online MT has made great improvements in academic translation. We believe these findings can empower EAL scholars to effectively use online MT in academic English writing and inspire educators to help novice scholars mobilize various high‐tech tools such as online MT to support their writing and international publishing.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
