Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T10:31:23.148Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Practitioners respond to John Flowerdew's ‘The linguistic disadvantage of scholars who write in English as an additional language: Myth or reality’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2021

Peter Brereton  and
Emily Yuko Cousins
Peter Brereton*
Affiliation:
International Christian University, Tokyo, Japan
Emily Yuko Cousins
Affiliation:
International Christian University, Tokyo, Japan
*
*Corresponding author. Email: pbrereton@icu.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his 2016 articles (Hyland, 2016a, 2016b), Ken Hyland makes a case for what he terms the ‘myth of linguistic injustice’, calling into question the assumption that ‘non-native’ users of English are at a linguistic disadvantage compared with their ‘native’ counterparts when writing for publication. In response, Flowerdew (2019) argues that Hyland is mistaken in categorically dismissing the extra challenges inherent in academic writing in an additional language, suggesting that while all academic writers may face a common set of challenges, ‘EAL [English as additional language] writers have an additional set of linguistic challenges, which do not apply (to such an extent) to L1 writers’ (p. 257). Here, we aim primarily to respond to Flowerdew yet, as his ideas are intrinsically intertwined with Hyland's initial claims, our article is unavoidably and necessarily a response to both writers and an attempt to contribute to the ongoing and wider discussion of native-speakerism and notions of speakerhood based on our own professional and personal experiences.

Type
Pedagogical Implications
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , January 2022 , pp. 145 - 148
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bailey, K. (2006). Marketing the eikaiwa wonderland: Ideology, akogare, and gender alterity in English conversation school advertising in Japan. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24(1), 105–130. doi.org/10.1068/d418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J. M. (2017). Why the dichotomy ‘L1 versus LX user’ is better than ‘native versus non-native speaker’. Applied Linguistics, 39(2), 236–240. doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw055Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. (2019). The linguistic disadvantage of scholars who write in English as an additional language: Myth or reality. Language Teaching, 52, 249–260. doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385–387. doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccl030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horner, B., & Trimbur, J. (2002). English only and U.S. College composition. College Composition and Communication, 53(4), 594–630. doi.org/10.2307/1512118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2016a). Academic publishing and the myth of language injustice. Journal of Second Writing, 31, 58–69. doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2016b). Language myths and publishing mysteries: A response to Politzer-Ahles et al. Journal of Second Writing, 34, 9–11. doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.09.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimura, K., & Kondo, M. (2004). Effective writing instruction: From Japanese danraku to English paragraphs. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual JALT Pan-SIG Conference, 22–23. Tokyo, Japan. Retrieved from http://hosted.jalt.org/pansig/2004/HTML/KimKon.htmGoogle Scholar
Kubota, R. (2002). The author responds: (Un)raveling racism in a nice field like TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), 84–92. doi.org/10.2307/3588363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, R. J. (2020). Uncovering ideology in English language teaching: Identifying the ‘native speaker’ frame. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinley, J., & Rose, H. (2018). Conceptualizations of language errors, standards, norms and nativeness in English for research publication purposes: An analysis of journal submission guidelines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, 1–11. doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, M., & Shapiro, R. (2018). Clarifying the multiple dimensions of monolingualism: Keeping our sights on language politics. Composition Forum, 38.Google Scholar
Yildiz, Y. (2012). Beyond the mother tongue: The postmonolingual condition. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar