Some linguistic and pragmatic considerations affecting science reporting in English by non-native speakers of the language

Open access

Abstract

Approximately 50% of publications in English peer reviewed journals are contributed by non-native speakers (NNS) of the language. Basic thought processes are considered to be universal yet there are differences in thought patterns and particularly in discourse management of writers with different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. The study highlights some areas of potential incompatibility in native and NNS processing of English scientific papers. Principles and conventions in generating academic discourse are considered in terms of frequently occurring failures of NNS to meet expectations of editors, reviewers, and readers. Major problem areas concern organization and flow of information, principles of cohesion and clarity, cultural constraints, especially those of politeness and negotiability of ideas, and the complicated area of English modality pragmatics. The aim of the paper is to sensitize NN authors of English academic reports to problem areas of discourse processing which are stumbling blocks, often affecting acceptance of manuscripts. The problems discussed are essential for acquiring pragmalinguistic and sociocultural competence in producing effective communication.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Benfield JR Howard KM. (2000). The language of science. Europ J Cardiothoracic Surg 18: 642-648.

  • Benfield JR Feak CB. (2006). How authors can cope with the burden of English as an international language. Chest 129: 1728-1730.

  • Borkin A. (1979). On some conjuncts signaling dissonance in written expository English. Lenguas para objetivos especifi cos 6: 95-116.

  • Ferguson G Perez-Llantada C Plo R. (2011). English as an international language of scientific publication: a study of attitudes. World Englishes 30(1): 41-59.

  • Fiedler S. (2011). English as a lingua franca - a native-culture free code? Language of communication versus language of identifi cation. J Appl Language Studies 5(3): 79-97.

  • Gannon F. (2007). Address bias. Europ Molec Biol Org (EMBO) J 8(5): 421.

  • Golebiowski Z. (2006). The distribution of discoursal salience in research papers: relational hypotaxis and parataxis. Discourse Studies 8: 259-277.

  • Hinkel E. (1999). Objectivity and credibility in L1 and L2 academic wriring in Culture in second language teaching and learning (Hinkel E. ed.) pp. 1-40 Cambridge Univ. Press.

  • Hinkel E. (2001). Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts. Applied Lang Learning 12(2): 111-132.

  • Hyland K. (2006). Medical discourse: hedges in Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Brown K. ed.) pp. 694-697 2nd ed. Elsevier Oxford.

  • Kies D. (1990). Indeterminacy in sentence structure. Linguistics and Educ 2(3): 231-258.

  • Knight J. (2003). Scientifi c literacy: Clear as mud. Nature 423: 376-378.

  • Ludbrook J. (2007). Writing intelligible English prose for biomedical journals. Clin & Exper Pharmacol & Physiol 34: 508-514.

  • Kourilova M. (1992). Functional approaches to understanding scientifi c discourse. UNESCO ALSED LSP 14(2): 20-28.

  • Kourilova M. (1995). Some linguistic and cultural aspects of scientifi c discourse processing. Vienna English Working Papers 4(2): 120-130.

  • Kourilova M. (1998) Communicative characteristics of reviews of scientifi c papers written by non-native users of English. Endocr Regul 32: 107-114.

  • Lock S. (1991). A diffi cult balance: editorial peer review in medicine. Third impression 1991 British Medical Journal London.

  • Perez-Llantada C. (2007). Native and non-native English scholars publishing research internationally: a small-scale study on authorial (in)visibility. J Appl Linguistics 4(2): 217-238.

  • Peters DP Ceci SJ (1982). Peer review practices in psychological journals: the fate of published articles submitted again. Behav and Brain Sciences 5: 187-195.

  • Rohrauer L. Dubec P. (2001). Syntactic and FSP aspects in existential construction. Linguistica Pragensia XXI(1): 24-32.

  • Seidlhofer B. (2003). A concept of international English and related issues: from ’real English’ to ‘realistic English’? Council of Europe pp. 1-28.

  • Sperber D Clement F Heink C Mascaro O Mercier H Origgi G Wilson D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language 25(4): 359-393.

  • Widdowson H. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 28(2): 377-389.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 1.78

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.274
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.671

Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 173 64 5
PDF Downloads 90 45 2