Linguistic injustice in academic publishing in English

In recent years, an intense debate in English for research publication purposes (ERPP) has developed around the question of whether linguistic injustice exists or not in academic publishing in English. In this Perspectives piece, I wish to engage in this debate by first situating the terms in which it is being developed, and then pointing out some of its limitations. In doing that, I argue that the view of language that is currently held in the debate seems problematic, and that a more explicit attention to the socially stratified nature of academic publishing seems missing from the debate. Suggesting potential ways forward, I propose that it seems crucial to adopt a view of language that anchors it more firmly as a social phenomenon, inherently connected to its speakers and the socially situated and stratified position that they inhabit. Remembering this is important in order to remain aware of the fact that both linguistic and non-linguistic factors are at play in shaping the uneven nature of academic publishing in English.

Challenges, feelings, and attitudes towards writing in ERPP in semi-periphery countries

This paper addresses writing in ERPP for graduate students matriculated in a Mexican Public University where the medium of instruction is Spanish. The students who were involved in our study registered for an academic writing course in ERPP, and submitted a draft research article in English as part of the admission requirements. Following a mixed-method approach, through a survey and a semi-structured interview, we aimed to explore the various ways in which students use English for research and publication purposes, the discursive and non-discursive challenges they perceived while drafting the article, and their feelings and attitudes towards writing in ERPP. The findings suggest that the discursive and non-discursive challenges perceived were aggravated by the lack of critical-pragmatic approaches, the poor English writing skills developed for academic purposes, and the lack of support for editing their papers in English, particularly from thesis supervisors. This led them to experience feelings of anxiety, frustration and discomfort about writing in English. We would argue that this additional burden and pressure for graduate students to publish in English in semi-periphery countries translates into a lack of confidence and feeling of disadvantage in comparison with their counterparts located in anglophone research communities in centre countries.

Translating authorial presence

Of increasing interest in cross-linguistic variation in academic discourse is the way in which writers use first-person pronouns (FPPs) to promote their agency. While research has shown that language specific socio-cultural, rhetorical and lexico-grammatical factors impact levels of self-concealment vs. self-promotion, less attention has been paid to the ways in which translated texts are sensitive to these discoursal traditions. We address this gap by analyzing frequency, rhetorical use, and grammatical form of FPPs in a corpus of research article (RA) abstracts in biology written by Russian and international researchers in two peer-reviewed bilingual journals. Three subcorpora were analyzed: (i) L1 Russian abstracts; (ii) the same abstracts translated into English; (iii) abstracts by international biologists in English from the same journals. The FPP tokens were identified and their frequency, rhetorical use, and forms were compared. The results show significant differences between the corpora which supports previous findings on cross-cultural variation in authorial presence in research genres. The results also suggest that the translation not only transfers L1 linguistic code but also adds a stronger emphasis on author agency. Implications for translating RAs into English as an exercise in linguistic, cognitive, and pragmatic equivalence as well as for accommodating discourse conventions of English as a lingua franca of science are explored.

Scholarly publication of Brazilian researchers across disciplinary communities

This paper examines the context of scholarly knowledge production and dissemination in Brazil by comparing the publishing practices in both Portuguese and in English of Brazilian scholars who hold a research grant, across eight fields of knowledge. Data consists of 1,874 Curricula Vitae and the analysis focused on the language, number, and genres of publications over a three-year period (2014 to 2016). The study revealed a clear contrast regarding the more frequent use of English by researchers in the ‘harder’ sciences and the preference for Portuguese by those in the ‘softer’ sciences. The results also suggested an interconnection in which scholars who published the most tended to adopt English. Multiple factors involved in the genre and language choices made by academics were analysed, such as characteristics of the work produced by each disciplinary community, the audience of the research, the type of language used, and the need to obtain research funding. This investigation can potentially inform policies and investments in Brazilian higher education and research to provide continued support specific to the needs of different disciplinary communities, as well as foster the inclusion of multilingual scholars who do not have English as their first language in the global arena of knowledge production and dissemination.