Is linguistic injustice a myth? A response to Hyland (2016)

Politzer-Ahles, Stephen; Holliday, Jeffrey J.; Girolamo, Teresa; Spychalska, Maria; Berkson, Kelly

doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2016.09.003

Cited by 87 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…What I have to say in the following will partially overlap with some of the points made in these pieces and I will indicate where this is the case. I should also mention that there is also a reply to Politzer-Ahles et al (2016) by Hyland (2016b).…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

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

Flowerdew

2019

Lang. Teach.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academics are coming under increasing pressure to publish internationally. Given the global dominance of English, this very likely means publishing in English-medium journals and with publishers which publish in English. This raises the important question of the possible disadvantage of those scholars whose first language is not English and who therefore have the additional burden of having to develop adequate proficiency in an additional language, English. As a student of modern languages to university level and of other languages to rather lower levels of proficiency and as a teacher of English for academic purposes (EAP) and of English for research and publication purposes (ERPP), since I became aware of this issue, I have always believed this extra burden on the English as an additional language (EAL) academic writer to be a self-evident truth. Ken Hyland, however, in a recent book (Hyland, 2015) and an article titled ‘Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice’ (Hyland, 2016a), has taken it upon himself to argue that such an assumption is ill-founded. Hyland argues that native-speakers (NSs) of English encounter the same difficulties as non-native speakers (NNSs) when it comes to academic writing, that ‘academic English is no one's first language’, and that it requires ‘deliberate learning’ by both NSs and NSs (p. 57). Native and non-native writers, Hyland implies, are on a level playing field when it comes to writing for publication, both groups having to jump the same hurdles.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 96%

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

Flowerdew

2019

Lang. Teach.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The above discussion may allow us to fine-grain some of the ongoing debates on the question of English for Research and Publication Purposes (ERPP) and on scholarly publishing more generally. On the question of ERPP, and whether English represents an additional barrier that second-language writers need to overcome, we would argue that framing the discussion in terms of injustices and inequalities between native and non-native English-speaking scholars is important [23], but perhaps not sufficient [24]. Language can certainly help us to point at the inequalities existing in the field of academic publishing, as our analysis has attempted to show, but language alone does not explain the existence and the perpetuation of such inequalities, as discussed above.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is argued that while English represents a useful tool for international cooperation, native speakers of the language enjoy an inherent advantage vis-à-vis non-native speakers [22]. More recently, authors have emphasized the idea that linguistic privilege exists in favor of native English-speaking academics, focusing on two of their privileges: for native English-speaking academics, publishing may: (1) require less effort (they might need to spend less time on their manuscripts), and (2) be biased in their favor (reviewers and editors will read their manuscripts more favorably by default) [23]. Thus, research on ERPP can help to illuminate discussions on scholarly publishing more generally, with a focus on the challenges authors face in writing for publication purposes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unexpected Emails to Submit Your Work: Spam or Legitimate Offers? The Implications for Novice English L2 Writers

Soler

Cooper

2019

Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyzes the discourse of what have been termed ‘predatory publishers’, with a corpus of emails sent to scholars by hitherto unknown publishers. Equipped with sociolinguistic and discourse analytic tools, we argue that the interpretation of these texts as spam or as legitimate messages may not be as straightforward an operation as one may initially believe. We suggest that English L2 scholars might potentially be more affected by publishers who engage in these email practices in several ways, which we identify and discuss. However, we argue that examining academic inequalities in scholarly publishing based exclusively on the native/non-native English speaker divide might not be sufficient, nor may it be enough to simply raise awareness about such publishers. Instead, we argue in favor of a more sociologically informed analysis of academic publishing, something that we see as a necessary first step if we wish to enhance more democratic means of access to key resources in publishing.

show abstract

“…This position has nevertheless been contested recently. To encounter the full debate, see the response by Politzer-Ahles et al (2016) to Hyland (2015Hyland ( , 2016a, and read Hyland's (2016b) response.…”

Section: Linguistic Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Past and future research agendas on writing strategies: Conceptualizations, inquiry methods, and research findings

Manchón

2018

SSLLT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper offers a retrospective narrative review of research on L2 writing strategies and a prospective discussion of potential theoretical and pedagogical relevant lines of inquiry to be explored in future research agendas. The retrospective analysis will synthesize the main trends observed in the conceptualization of writing strategies as well as central directions followed in empirical research in the domain. The prospective discussion tries to advance research agendas on the basis of several observations about L2 writing that are presented as key points to be considered when analyzing existing or thinking about future research in the domain. Special mention will be made of future research avenues centrally concerned with theoretical and empirical questions on the manner in which strategic behavior during writing and during written corrective feedback processing may foster language learning. It will be suggested that following this route can result in interesting and profitable synergies between research on language learning strategies and recent SLA-oriented L2 writing research initiatives on the language learning potential associated with L2 writing.

show abstract

Is linguistic injustice a myth? A response to Hyland (2016)

Cited by 87 publications

References 22 publications

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

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

Unexpected Emails to Submit Your Work: Spam or Legitimate Offers? The Implications for Novice English L2 Writers

Past and future research agendas on writing strategies: Conceptualizations, inquiry methods, and research findings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About