Currently reading:
- John Flowerdew, "Writing for scholarly publication in English: the case of Hong Kong," Journal of Second Language Writing, Vol. 8, No. 2 (1999), pp. 123–145.
- John Flowerdew, "Discourse Community, Legitimate Peripheral Participation, and the Nonnative-English-Speaking Scholar," TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Spring, 2000), pp. 127-150.
- John Flowerdew, "Attitudes of Journal Editors to Nonnative Speaker Contributions," TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Spring, 2001), pp. 121-150
- Yongyan Lia and John Flowerdew, "Shaping Chinese novice scientists’ manuscripts for publication," Journal of Second Language Writing, Vol. 16, Issue 2 (June 2007), pp. 100-117.
- Flowerdew, J., Li, D. C. S., & Miller, L., "Attitudes towards English and Cantonese among Hong Kong university lecturers," TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 32 (1998), 201-232.
Quotes from No. 1:
"In this era of globalization, to publish in a language other than English is to cut oneself off from the international community of scholars, on the one hand, and to prejudice one's chances of professional advancement, on the other." (p. 124)
"Just over two thirds of the Cantonese L1 academic (68%, N=585) felt that they were at a disadvantage when wiriting publication in English compared to NSs. Perhaps more surprising, however, is that nearly a third 32% felt they were at no disadvantage vis-a-vis NSs." (p. 137)
"Of those respondents who felt they were at a disadvantage in getting published in English compared with NSs, just over half (51%) indicated that they had technical problems with the language. Organization factors (14%), innovative thinking (11%)...However, nearly a third of respondents (29%) felt that there was prejudice by referres and editors, and that publishers placed NNSs at a disadvantage when writing for publication." (p. 137-8)
"Notwithstanding potential prejudice ont he part of referres, editors, and publishers, as perceived by nearly a third of the Cantonese L1 academics, confidence in getting a solo English paper published (as opposed to writing it) was also strong...In contrast to writing and publishing in English, confidence levels int he ability either wrtie a solo paper or get one published in Chinese were much lower." (p. 138)
"in spite of the fact that, as language experts and editors have noted, they may have serious problems with the more abstract features of academic writing. Notwithstanding this belief, only 11% of Hong Kong Cantonese academics indicated that a lack of innovative thinking had actually disadvantaged their ability to write in English. This finding suggests that for the majority of Cantonese scholars, the source of any writing disadvantage was or could be attributed to both the vagaries of the English language and to such external influences as prejudice and organizational factors, but that it was not perceived as being primarily due to any lack of intellectual creativity." (p. 141)
"because most Hong Kong academics have been educated through the medium of English and have not therefore developed skill in writing Chinese for academic purposes, they do not have the option of writing first in Chinese and then having their work translated." (p. 141)
Two big issues here, I think: 1) NNSs, the Hong Kong Cantonese L1 scholars in this case study, tended not to admit their weaknesses in areas other than language problem and prejudice, such as organization and innovation. 2) Many of these scholars were or perceive themselves as competent in English writing whereas, in fact, being solely trained in English academic writing, they simply had no option of writing in Chinese.
Quotes from No. 2:
"I [Anthony Y. H. Fung] don't like to write in Chinese but not because I hate Chinese but simply the Chinese journals are not recognized - the English article will count more than the Chinese one." (p. 134)
"Obviously, this manuscript has not been written by a native speaker. There are many problems with language usage that would need to be corrected were this to be published." (p. 135, note 2)
"First, he [Anthony Y. H. Fung] felt that the journal [Asian Survey] wanted the confictual aspect of Hong Kong-China relations to be emphasised...Second...the journal 'tended to attribute everything to China's interference' He felt obliged to accomodate this tendency. Third, he considered that the main concern of the journal was "freedom in Hong Kong under the rein(sic) of China." In response to this last issue, he added a lengthy section describing Hong Kong's gradual democratic development before the handover, in order to satisfy what he described as the journal's desire 'to make the point that Hong Kong's political development is interrupted by China's presence.' These changes were in line with the analytical orientation of the journal, as opposed to the more empirical emphasis that Oliver [pseudonym of Anthony Y. H. Fung] had originally put on the paper. They also suggest, however, that the journal, or at least the in-house editor, had a particular political ideology to convey." (p.132)
Three points here, I think: 1. Asian Survey's ideological claims against Fung's empirical findings; 2. Fung's concession to submit to non-empricial claims, or his failure to insist on his own stance against the interests of this "learned" journal; 3. Fung's best fit position, a Hong Kong scholar at a Hong Kong university, having experienced pre- and post-1997 changes, to be taken advantage by this "political" journal. To conclude, how does the published paper represent his own ideas? The answer should be crystal clear. It does create a good reference to political academics (the political interest of the journal) and academic politics (young scholar's aspiration and academic career).
Quotes from No. 3:
Problematic aspects of NNS contributions: 1. surface erros; 2. parochialism (I think it is very critical); 3. introductions and discussions as most problematic sections of the research article; 4. absence of authorial voice; 5. nativized varieties of English. (p. 127)
Positive attributes of NNS contributions: 1. show an awareness of aspects of language such as cross-cultural pragmatics; 2. display the objectivity of an outside perspective (who are outsiders? It's very clear here); 3. possess NS knowledge of other languages; 4. essential to the international nature of international journals; 5. can test theories of the dominant centre; 6. can investigate issues that might not occur to researchers in the centre or investigate these issues in different ways, using different data; 7. have access to research sites where NSs would be intrusive; 8. can alert the centre to research undertaken in other scholarly traditions. (p. 127)
"we have people who are ... in order to make headway in their academic careers, have to publish in English, that we should be sympathetic to them, and that we should give them a reasonable amount of help." (p. 129)
"NSs are much more tolerant of language problems out of NNSs than other NNSs are...a NNS teach will pick up mistakes and errors made by students far more actively than NS teachers will do." (p. 132)
"(The) problem of parochialism, or failure to show the relevance of the study to the international community, was felt to be probably the most serious impediment to NNS contributors. Contributions from peripheral contexts tended to be too localised" (p. 135)
"The research question is so locally focused that it does not spread out into more general interest areas...My guess is that it is harder for NNSs who have spent less time abroad, spent less time professionally abroad, for them to see how it might be applicable to other palces." (p. 135)
"What I seem to get from the NNSs is either an insufficient literature review, so they don't show that they really know the literature. And maybe it's because they have difficult getting access to the literature that we're familiar with here...we're only interested in the last 5 years or so." (p. 136) (emphasis added)
"The famous phrase on the stock market, 'The trend is your friend.' You want to write in the way that the journal encourages." (p. 142)
The biggest problem, I think, is parochialism, or nongeneralizability.
