Content uploaded by Randa Sibahi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Randa Sibahi on Sep 27, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
205
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.6. No.3 September 2015
Pp. 205– 218
English Triumphalism in Academic Writing: The Price of Global Visibility
Randa Sibah
iUniversity of Exeter, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Within the academic field, it has been said that one has to “publish in English or perish”
(Viereck, 1996: 20). Lured by the prospect of international readability, and thereby possibility of
higher citations, non-native English speaking (NNES) researchers resort to publishing their work
primarily and exclusively in English. While this has created a global academic environment with
a common medium of communication, it has been at the cost of other important national
languages. Global visibility comes at the price of local or regional invisibility. The purpose of
this study is to examine the effects of English medium publication (EMP) on local languages. An
exploratory research methodology with a critical agenda was employed. Qualitative data
obtained through semi-structured interviews revealed that NNES researchers acknowledge the
privilege attached to publishing in internationally indexed journals and employ numerous
strategies to facilitate successful publication. However, most participants expressed clear
dissatisfaction toward this policy and some indicated that, apart from publishing mainly in
English, they also publish in their local language for the purpose of serving their local
communities. It was concluded that additional efforts are needed to engage NNES who are
competitive at the international level in research that is of local and regional importance in the
purpose of promoting linguistic diversity and enhancing collaboration between core and
peripheral languages.
Key words: critical applied linguistics (CALx), English medium-publication (EMP), linguistic
imperialism, non-native English speaking (NNES)
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.6. No3 September 2015
English Triumphalism in Academic Writing: The Price of Global Visibility Sibahi
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
206
Introduction
The emergence of English as the dominant international language of academic publication has
been well documented (Ammon, 2003). A database analysis revealed that more than 95% of
indexed natural science journals and 90% of social science journals use all or some English
(Thomson Reuters, 2009a as cited in Yigitoglu, 2010). Benfield & Howard (2000) further report
that the proportion of Medline journal articles in English has increased from 72.2% in 1980 to
88.6% of the overall total in 1996. A similar picture for the field of chemistry is outlined by Sano
(2002), who argues that over the period 1970-2000, the share of chemistry journal articles
published in English rose from 54.2% to 82.1% overall.
Not only has English dominance diminished the chances of academics who are non-
native speakers of English to publish in high impact international journals (Ammon 1998), it has
also negatively affected indigenous cultures and languages. Researchers working towards
preserving world languages have repetitively pointed to the linguistic impoverishment that adds
up over time. According to Canagarajah (1999), multilingual scholars enrich the knowledge base
of core academic communities since they write about things that mainstream disciplinary
communities do not know of and draw attention to untapped or unknown resources. Thus, their
limited participation in global scholarship will indeed impoverish knowledge production
(Uzuner, 2008).
Supporters of „English triumphalism‟ (Graddol, 2006:10) argue that the spread of English
is natural, neutral and beneficial for international communication and mutual understanding.
Crystal (2001), for one, claims that conversation without a common language between
academicians from different nationalities would prove impossible. Counter to this, are other
critics who reject the neutrality of English and argue that it is a form of linguistic imperialism
that aims at perpetuating the hegemony of English (Phillipson, 1992). Pennycook (2001:80)
argues “English threatens other languages, acts as a gatekeeper to positions of wealth and
prestige…through which much of the unequal distribution of wealth, resources and knowledge
operates.” A less radical stance has been adopted by Canagarajah (1996) who proposes
appropriating English to one‟s needs in the purpose of promoting diversity and a balanced
ecology of languages.
Some scholars have investigated the difficulties NNES researchers face when adapting to
the literacy practices of English speaking disciplinary communities (Flowerdew, 2000; Lillis &
Curry, 2006). Others drew attention to the effects English-Medium Publication (EMP) is having
on NNES scholars‟ academic career (Bidlake, 2008; Medgyes & László, 2001) and choice of
research topics and methodology (Flowerdew, 2000; Lillis & Curry, 2006; Paiva & Pagano,
2001; Davis & Tschudin, 2007). However, studies on the effects EMP has on local languages are
rather scarce (Mauranen, 2003; Ammon, 1990). This study, which is conducted in the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia, is an attempt to fill this gap. It is based on critical applied linguistics, and aims
at problematizing the assumption that the dominance of EMP has no negative effects on
languages outside the Inner Anglophone Circle.
Literature Review
This study is located in the field of critical applied linguistics (CALx) and critical pedagogy. The
literature review section outlines the theoretical framework, discusses global inequality due to
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.6. No3 September 2015
English Triumphalism in Academic Writing: The Price of Global Visibility Sibahi
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
207
the spread of English with reference to the current practices in academic publication and lastly
investigates the effect of English-Medium Publication (EMP) on the position of local languages.
Theoretical Framework
This study aims at problematizing the „taken for granted‟ assumption that EMP is beneficial and
does not impact native languages outside the Anglophone circle. It is based on critical applied
linguistics (CALx) whose goal is not simply to describe the current situation, but to question the
established views and assumptions around practice and theory in language education. CALx
springs from “an assumption that we live amid a world of pain” (Pennycook, 2001: 7) and that
critical applied linguistics can alleviate that pain and create possibility of change. Critical
language policy research is part of the field of critical applied linguistics and aims at producing
social change through examining “the processes by which systems of inequality are created and
sustained” (Tollefson, 2006: 43). Hence, language policies such as EMP should be viewed with a
critical lens, to determine whether and how EMP promotes the spread of a dominant language
i.e., English and endangers others. I support the argument that it is important to raise awareness
to the detrimental effects EMP is having on languages outside the Anglophone Circle in the
purpose of changing the status quo and adopting feasible solutions that will ultimately benefit all.
The Spread of English: A Critical Perspective
For many scholars, the position of English in the world is not accidental. Phillipson (1992)
claims that English has been promoted by the UK and the US for their national interests. He
further identifies the power expressed in the English language and reinforced by English
language teaching professionals around the world as „linguistic imperialism‟ (1998: 339).
Nonetheless, Phillipson‟s notion of linguistic imperialism has been criticized by Bisong (1995)
who asserts that English is a linguistic choice that does not endanger indigenous languages and
cultures. Fishman (1996) likewise rejects the notion of English imperialism and argues that
English and local languages can actually complement each other by satisfying different needs
and having different social functions. In the same line, Crystal (1997) believes that English was
just in “the right place at the right time” (cited in Phillipson, 2000:105) and those who choose to
speak it do so freely. Brutt-Griffler (1998, 2002) follows a similar approach in her description of
„World English‟ and De Swaan (2001) maintains that English global popularity is due to the
benefits it can provide and that people choose to learn it not just because of the promotion by
agents, such as the British Council, but also because of its high communicative potential.
English and Global Inequality
Although English is considered as a key to economic success of nations worldwide, its global
spread has propelled significant social, political and economic inequalities. However, Conrad
(1996), Davies (1996) and Fishman (1996), concur that it is the world political-economic system
rather than the English language alone that is responsible for global inequality. The major threat
lies in the weak political status of marginalized languages that promotes the domination of
English in education, government, publication and media.
Canagarajah (1999: 41) states that “language in itself is not good or evil - it is how
language is used by power structures that implicates it in evil”. Hence, metaphors used by
numerous scholars in labelling English as a Tyrannosaurus Rex (Swales, 1997), a killer language
(Skuttnab-Kangas, 2006) and a hydra (Rapatahana & Brunce, 2012) seem to be unsuitable.
Mufwene (2001: 12) maintains: “Languages do not kill languages; their speakers do, in giving
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.6. No3 September 2015
English Triumphalism in Academic Writing: The Price of Global Visibility Sibahi
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
208
them up, although they themselves are victims of changes in the socio-economic ecologies in
which they evolve”. Counter to these are the arguments put forward by Crystal, (2001) and
Dalby, (2002) who attribute the cause of language death to the dominance of English and the
threatening impact it is exerting on other languages. Accordingly, as people concerned with
language matters, we need to encourage linguistic diversity and raise awareness to the
relationship between national and international languages in the purpose of preserving the rights
of minority, national and immigrant languages (Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, 1996).
English Medium for Publication (EMP)
English has become the dominant language involved in the production, reproduction and
circulation of knowledge (Short et al., 2001). In this era, to publish in a language other than
English is to cut oneself off from the international community of scholars and to decrease one‟s
chance to professional advancement. Publishing in English is the only way a multilingual scholar
can be noticed (Medgyes & Kaplan, 1992). The studies of Duszak & Lewkowicz (2008) and
Giannoni (2008) also support this argument, whereby survey results revealed that Polish scholars
favour writing in English despite the numerous difficulties they face. However, privileging
English has a detrimental effect on the evolution of local languages and research cultures. It has
been argued that the adoption of the Anglophone normative conventions for the sake of
acceptance for publication may involve epistemicide, „the repackaging of a text in terms of the
dominant epistemology, thereby rendering invisible rival forms of knowledge‟ (Bennett, 2012:
45). Wolters (2013) posits that the price of globalization entails that NNES scholars
compellingly renounce the cultural embedding of their countries since the agenda of which
knowledge counts is set in an Anglophone world, where everything that does not fit to its
cultural habits and traditions has little chance to surface.
Another consequence of EMP relates to the research itself. To increase chances of
publication, local issues most in need of study are oftentimes eschewed in favour of issues that
hold more interest for the international scientific community (Lillis & Curry, 2006; Willemyns,
2001). Contrary to these claims is the argument put forward by Peraz -Liantada, (2012) who
states that English certainly offers opportunities for scientific exchange, communication with the
international community and recognition and prestige for NNES scientists. In this new era of
multilingualism and plurilingualism, it is the NNS researchers that need to be worried, for by not
learning a foreign language, they risk being left out in this increasingly multilingual and global
community. Others including Altbach (2009: 25) and Jacoby (1987: 235) call NNES researchers
to take „responsibility‟ and to continue „disseminating their research and analysis in local
languages‟ and to demonstrate their commitment to a public world and a public language.‟ In
fact, the number of scientific publications in languages other than English keeps growing even
more rapidly as the scientific communities in non-Anglo countries (for instance, in China,
Indonesia, Iran, Turkey, Southern Europe and Latin America) expand and diversify. However,
the vast majority of high impact journals are still in English. Indeed, it is the privilege attached to
the internationally indexed journals that propels NNES academics toward writing and publishing
in English. The cases of both Hong Kong and China (Flowerdew & Li, 2009) exemplify how
publishing in center-based English-language journals is often accorded a much higher status than
local publication.
While much of the literature on global English reinforces the position of English by
building on the implicit and incorrect assumption that English is the only international language
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.6. No3 September 2015
English Triumphalism in Academic Writing: The Price of Global Visibility Sibahi
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
209
of academia, numerous scholars advocate the need to counteract English linguistic hegemony so
as to ensure balanced language ecology. However, if the rhetoric of maintaining linguistic
diversity is to be more than pretty words on paper, solutions have to be found. Scholars need to
demonstrate how linguistic diversity should and can be maintained. More studies need to unmask
any academic rhetoric that claims English is detached from the forces behind its expansion and
serves global equality.
Recognition that national languages are at stake can lead to action, which in turn might neutralize
or minimize the threat. More academic and policy attention needs to be directed to the rise of the
English language, especially in regionally specific contexts. The spread of English indeed should
be viewed with a critical lens to show how privileging English can threaten local creativity and
national unity. This research was motivated by my interest in issues around equal participation
in producing academic knowledge (Lillis & Curry, 2006) and by my growing awareness of the
difficulties faced by colleagues from non-English speaking countries including myself.
The Study
Significance of the Study
Lured by the prospect of international readability, and thereby possibility of higher citations,
non-native English speaking (NNES) researchers resort to publishing their work primarily and
exclusively in English since Anglophone contexts are often more valued as objects and sites of
research than research coming from the outer Anglophone areas. This is attributed to the belief
that English-medium publications are of higher status than publications in other languages.
However, the promotion of EMP necessarily implies a demotion of local languages. The purpose
of this study is to investigate the effects of EMP on local languages and to explore NNES
researchers views regarding the adoption of EMP. This study aims to answer the following
research questions:
1. What are the foremost consequences, if any, of the adoption of EMP?
2. Cognizant of the reality that EMP is now firmly established and will not likely be
deposed any time soon, how can these consequences be minimized?
3. What is the effect of EMP on local languages?
Research Participants
This study used purposive sampling technique, which selects participants “based on a specific
purpose rather than randomly” (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003a, p. 713) and is believed to be a rich
source of the data of interest (Du Gay, 1996). Based on my epistemological stance of wanting to
explore the meanings academics attach to writing and publishing in a language that is not their
native tongue, I used networks i.e., ResearchGate and LinkedIn and contacted 70 academics of
which only 9 agreed to participate in the study. Nonetheless, I feel that this number of
participants is sufficient to explore experiences from a variety of perspectives. The participants
were selected based on two criteria: that they were all non-native English speakers and have
done a lot of publications in English. Thus, they suited the purpose of the study and would most
likely contribute appropriate data, both in terms of relevance and depth. All participants hold
positions within faculties of humanities, science and social sciences in international and Saudi
universities. Their countries of origin are India, Turkey, Austria, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Saudi
Arabia. Special attention was put in selecting the nationalities. While one originated from former
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.6. No3 September 2015
English Triumphalism in Academic Writing: The Price of Global Visibility Sibahi
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
210
colonies of the English Empire i.e., India, others came from countries where English is used as a
foreign language i.e., Austria, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
After identifying the main participants, consent letters were sent detailing the purpose of the
study, expectations of participants and issues of confidentiality. Participants were told that they
had the option to withdraw from the study at any time. They were also assured that their names
would remain confidential and that all information provided would be treated with utmost
secrecy.
Interview Design and Data Collection Procedure
Semi-structured interviews were used as a data collection method since they serve my critical
enquiry and enable me to critically study situations from cultural, economic, political, and
historical perspective. Interview questions were developed in relevance to the critical literature
on English hegemony and researchers‟ experiences; the interview was then piloted to see if it
worked as planned and prompts were used to elicit more detailed responses from the researchers.
Nine interviews were conducted with researchers of different nationalities, genders, ages and
professions. Each interview lasted between 30-45 minutes and was held either in the working
place of the participants or through detailed email conversations.
In all instances, the interviews opened with an introduction and explanation of the purpose
behind the study. Rubin & Rubin (1995, cited in Du Gay, 1996) recommend that the researcher
begin the interview with an informal chat about something related to the topic of the study to put
the participants at ease and establish positive rapport. Participants were then asked to give some
background information about themselves such as their ages, nationalities, work experiences,
research interests and number of publications. The second part of the interview consisted of
questions that problematize EMP and examine the effect of English on local and regional
languages. Accordingly, participants were asked about their views on the dominance of English
in publication, the effect it may impose on their native language, the difficulties they encounter
when trying to write and publish in English and the strategies they use to overcome these
obstacles.
At the end of each interview, the participants were thanked for their time and shared experiences
and were assured that all the data provided would remain confidential.
Findings and Discussion
The dominant themes that emerged from the analysis of the participants‟ responses are as
follows:
Publishing in English indexed journals
All participants attested their preference for publishing in English indexed journals. The reasons
they gave were generally to reach a wider audience, to increase citation rates and to
accommodate the assessment criteria. Shyam, for one, argued, in English indexed journals,
„global visibility is higher; as such the possibility of citation is more.‟ Similarly, Gusun stated,
„with visibility comes recognition and recognition opens closed doors‟ and Nadia maintained that
reaching a wider readership is of utmost importance were she to attain „high academic
standards.‟
In addition to trying to reach a wider audience, participants‟ preferred choice is also
driven by the prospect of meeting the assessment expectation. Their value to their institution is
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.6. No3 September 2015
English Triumphalism in Academic Writing: The Price of Global Visibility Sibahi
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
211
primarily based on their research output, which is measured by the number of articles published
and the number of times these articles have been cited. Accordingly, both Nadia and Munir
stated that although the expectation of faculty members to publish in internationally indexed
journals is not always made explicit; it is well understood in general and is quickly assimilated
by new faculty members. However, Gusun and Khyam noted that since they work in institutions
where English is the sole medium of instruction, it is taken for granted that publications need to
be in English medium.
There is also a general agreement among most of the participants that institutional
support is provided for those who tend to publish in internationally indexed journals. To this end,
Fahed, a senior academic, notes, „our institution gives researchers grants, helps them to attend
conferences, provides annual benefits and uses the publications to extend or shorten contracts.‟
However, Gusun stated that the institution where she works does not provide any support though
its „departmental policy requires two English journal publications per year from each faculty.‟
It is clear that publishing in internationally indexed English journals is the target
participants aim at for international readership, promotion and higher citation rates. Publishing in
English indeed is the only way a multilingual scholar can be noticed (Medgyes & Kaplan, 1992;
Giannoni, 2008).
Inequality and English
Despite the fact that all participants agreed that EMP policy has indeed facilitated
communication across the international scientific community, almost all admitted that it has also
silenced a large proportion of that community. Fahed, for one, said:
English has sidestepped, ignored and marginalized other communities…but again
because you want to be visible…because the level of competition of high…so if you
write internally, you will go down and your level will go down.
Similar views were expressed by Nadia, Gusun and Andrea. While Nadia stated, „NNES
writers have some really good ideas, but they are unable to express them in a language other than
their own,‟ Gusun argued, „English has constrained other communities because not everyone has
the language proficiency to meet the demands of publishing in English‟ and Andrea maintained,
„language affects thinking, and, if the proficiency in a foreign language is not quite what you
wish it to be, it has an effect on your writing and thinking.‟
A few participants expressed their dissatisfaction to publishing exclusively in English
indexed journals. Tarek, for example, found that due to English centrality, other languages have
become „peripheral.‟ Similarly, Ahmad drew attention to the fact that EMP „negatively impacts
the development of national societies, diminishes national language content on the Internet and
ultimately leads to the impoverishment of knowledge.‟ This draws to mind what Uzuner (2008)
warned regarding the limited participation of NNES scholars and the impoverishment of
knowledge production that adds up over time. This dearth of publications indeed isolates
peripheral academics from their international disciplinary communities. Fahed further blamed
the low rate, outdatedness and poor quality of Arabic research and Munir expressed a feeling of
remorse for not publishing in Arabic, his native language, and argued that he has always felt
guilty since all researchers he collaborates with are „from outside the Arab world.‟
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.6. No3 September 2015
English Triumphalism in Academic Writing: The Price of Global Visibility Sibahi
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
212
Publishing in local languages
Of all the participants, only four (Ahmad, Tarek, Fahed, Andrea) have published in their native
language. To Fahed, publishing in one‟s native language is considered „a social commitment.‟
He argued that in addition to fulfilling what is required (i.e. publishing in English), he has
written a number of guide books in Arabic for local students: „I want my students to have access
to valuable knowledge.‟ Similarly, Ahmad has been fruitfully publishing in local journals for he
felt it is incumbent to disseminate his research and thoughts to the local academic and non-
academic readership and regards publishing in one‟s native language a „must when it is about the
scientific, economic or social development of the country.‟ Tarek has also manifested a positive
attitude towards writing in his native language i.e., Arabic and stated, „Being recognized
globally, to me, is as important as being recognized regionally…it is important that we promote
our language as we are promoting English.‟
It seems that Ahmad, Tarek and Fahed are fulfilling what Altbach (2009: 25) calls the
„responsibility‟ of scholars „to disseminate research in local languages.‟ For Andrea, writing in
German, her native language, is particularly difficult due to the fact that „English and German
have a different direction of thinking‟. Whilst „English is more reader oriented, German focuses
more on the content.‟ However, it is worth mentioning that Nadia declared that she has no regret
for letting go of her native language in favor of English; in fact, she sees it as a „matter of
appreciation‟ to write or speak in the other person‟s native language. This point was also echoed
by Gusun who explicitly stated that it was her choice to write exclusively in English. These
arguments bring to mind Mufwene‟s (2001: 12) logical dispute that „Languages do not kill
languages; their speakers do, in giving them up, although they themselves are victims of changes
in the socio-economic ecologies in which they evolve.‟
It should be emphasized that all nine participants explicitly pointed out that research
published in languages other than English will not be globally recognized and its citation and
circulation will be limited. In fact, Nadia noted that such research „gets buried‟ as it is „globally
invisible.‟ This concurs with what Gibbs (1995), Phillipson (2001) and Tardy (2004) posit that
work not published in English tends to be undervalued or even ignored, thereby falling into the
domain of „lost science.‟
Obstacles faced and strategies used when publishing in English
Studies presented by different scholars (e.g. Flowerdew 2000, 2001; Burrough-Boenisch 2003;
Lillis & Curry 2006), collectively attest that writing in English creates insurmountable problems
to non-Anglophone researchers whose first language is not in the same language family as
English. Of all the participants, Khyam, of an Indian origin and Fahed, of an Arabic origin
pointed out that due to „limited‟ vocabulary (Khyam) and linguistic incompetence (Fahed); they
sometimes face difficulties expressing their ideas. This feeling of unskillfulness resembles that
voiced by Flowerdew (1999: 235) who argued that his sample of Hong Kong academics felt
handicapped by a „less rich vocabulary‟ and „less facility in expression.‟ According to P8, NNES
scholars face an extra „headache‟ when writing academic texts. „Our texts‟, he clarified, „require
a lot of editing in regards to both content and language whereas with a native speaker, only the
content is edited to make the message stronger.‟
The rest of the respondents, namely Khyam, Ahmad, Zaid, Tarek, Gusun and Andrea
stated that they do not encounter any linguistic difficulties as they consider themselves „fully
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.6. No3 September 2015
English Triumphalism in Academic Writing: The Price of Global Visibility Sibahi
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
213
bilingual.‟ However, Gusun noted that „there were times when I felt like I can write so much
better if I was writing in my native language i.e., Turkish.‟ She further drew attention to how
time consuming the process of writing in English can be since „I want to make sure the draft I
send out to reviewers is a mature one so when the feedback comes, it is not overwhelming.‟ Zaid
on the other hand, feels more competent in L2 as he stated, „due to under-use of lexical and
stylistic devices, I have lost the ability to write academically in my native language and therefore
write solely in English.‟
Further difficulties mentioned by the respondents relate to their work being rejected by
international journals. Scholars such as Swales (2004) contend that the main rejection criteria for
NNES writers‟ manuscripts are content-based aspects such as lack of clarity in presenting results
rather than linguistic ones. Gusun stated that many of her papers have been rejected due to
„incomplete data collection and analysis‟ whereas Nadia related the high rejection rate to the fact
that „reviewers are generally unfamiliar with the methodology I use.‟ Similarly, Munir and Fahed
argued that rejection was due to the fact that „content did not fit the journal criteria‟ whereas
Ahmad, a senior expert in the scientific and technological fields further stated, „it seems that
there exist a certain form of rivalry‟ and that „some journals are governed by certain schools.‟ A
similar argument was confirmed by Nadia: „reviewers come from a different paradigm than me.‟
She further stated, „it is sad that much of our work gets rejected.‟ These interpretations support
Canagarajah, (2002) and Lin‟s (2005: 38) arguments which suggest that NNES scholars‟ papers
need „to be framed by the perspectives of the Anglo-European center theorists‟ and those of
Lillis & Curry (2006) which highlight the strong influence literary brokers have on the content of
academic texts produced outside the Anglophone circles.
The literature has revealed a range of strategies used by NNES scholars at various stages
of writing for publication (Burrough-Boenisch, 2003; Li, 2007; Li & Flowerdew, 2007). A
strategy emphasized by Fahed is that in order to get published in center journals, he regularly
asks native speakers colleagues to check and edit his English whereas Nadia, Ahmad, Tarek and
Munir pointed out that they usually resubmit their work to other journals since they frequently
disagree with the reviewers‟ comments. It is worth mentioning that one respondent, Gusun,
showed a positive attitude toward reviewers‟ comments whereby she stated, „I agree with the
reviewers‟ comments; therefore, I revise and either resubmit to the same journal or shop for
another one.‟
Demotion of local languages
One of the criticisms of EMP is its threatening impact on local languages. To this end,
participants were asked to summarize the effects of EMP, if any, on their local languages. Of all
participants, three (Khyam, Munir and Fahed) concurred that the dominance of English is double
edged as it carries both negative and positive consequences; two (Nadia, Ahmad) expressed
criticism of the status quo and three (Gusun, Zaid, Andrea) stated that the effect is neutral. On
the positive effects, Khyam stated that since there are more than 22 scheduled languages in India,
his country of origin, it would be more feasible to use English for scientific publications and
adopt other local languages in social science disciplines as the latter is „generally based on field
studies that have relevancy with the concerned geographical areas.‟ This argument concurs with
Canagarajah (1996) who proposed appropriating English to one‟s needs. Munir also felt some
positivity in the adoption of English as he stated that by writing exclusively in English, he is
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.6. No3 September 2015
English Triumphalism in Academic Writing: The Price of Global Visibility Sibahi
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
214
„contributing to the promotion of a universal language, which has always been the dream of
people and Fahed maintained that English linguistic style needs to be incorporated into Arabic,
his native language, since it is „more straightforward‟, „clearer‟ and „to the point.‟
As regards to the negative effects, Fahed argued that English is „undermining, diluting and
erasing our culture‟ whereas Munir admitted that by promoting English, he is doing harm not
only to his native language i.e., Arabic but to other main languages as well. The result, in his
perspective, is „the dominance of English at the expense of other local languages.‟ Nadia,
originally from Egypt, further highlighted the negative consequences of EMP by stating:
This policy makes me less likely to try to write in Arabic because it won‟t benefit me
internationally…I feel ashamed of this…I want to keep pride in my own identity and
language yet to be successful academically, I need to keep focusing on English and ignore
Arabic.
This feeling of regret resembles that voiced by a Slovakian scholar in a study by Curry &
Lillis (2004: 680) who remarked, „I am ashamed. We should do more.‟ To this end, Ahmad
recommended having a well-enforced policy for publications, through which Arabic is used to
discuss national issues for as he further elaborated „such issues are being overlooked.‟ This
brings to mind the belief Curry & Lillis (2004) held on how local concerns are eschewed in
favor of matters that hold more interest for the international scientific community. Nadia and
Andrea further recommended supporting local publications since more linguistic diversity brings
with it more diversity in thoughts and traditions‟ and Fahed explicitly pointed out that Arabic
scholarship has much to offer to the West; thus, „one should play in the arena of research
internationally, but do something for his community.‟ Lastly, Munir spoke of Arabizing
education and supporting Arabic research, which in his viewpoint need to be a unified effort
across the Arab world: „ the Arabic culture needs to be respected and preserved because as long
as we look down on our own culture, and aspire to adopt different international cultural patterns,
Arabic will never gain the respect it deserves.‟
Clearly, these arguments have been echoed by Baker (2001) who encouraged a balanced
ecology of languages where interaction between users of languages does not allow one to spread
at the cost of others and where diversity is maintained for the long-term survival of humankind.
Limitations and Recommendations
As a small-scaled exploratory study relying on interviews as the primary source of data, the
research reported in this paper has obvious limitations. In regards to the selection of the
participants, it is possible that those who volunteered had strong opinions regarding EMP.
However, I, as a researcher, was alert for possible biases and inconsistencies in respondents‟
answers. Additionally, the use of one data collection tool could also be considered as another
limitation: an additional tool i.e., documentaries would have enhanced the validity of the study.
However, the fact that I had only limited contact with the respondents prevented me from
compiling additional data. Lastly, since the participants in this study were not randomly selected,
it is unlikely to generalize the findings of the study to a larger population.
The study has definitely provided additional insight, as most views presented were consistent and
validated the complexities EMP imposes and its negative effects on regional and local languages.
Nonetheless, more research needs to be conducted with larger sample sizes as it may offer more
insights into the publishing practices of multilingual scholars. Another area that needs to be
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.6. No3 September 2015
English Triumphalism in Academic Writing: The Price of Global Visibility Sibahi
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
215
addressed is to examine the challenges, if any, monolingual scholars face in getting access into
core disciplinary communities in the purpose of corroborating findings with the present study.
Concluding Remarks
Taken as a whole, publishing in the domestically indexed journals and publishing in
internationally English indexed journals does not carry the same weight, with the latter enjoying
more prestige, wider international recognition and higher citation rate. The findings in the study
revealed that participants consider international refereed journals as the most important form of
research publications for career advantage, and by far regarded English as the predominant
language of publication. Despite the fact that all participants agreed that EMP policy has
facilitated international communication and knowledge dissemination, most concurred that it has
also marginalized, constrained and sidestepped national communities. However, it is worth
noting that a few participants namely Ahmad, Tarek and Fahed feel responsible towards local
communities; thus, in addition to fulfilling what is required (i.e. publishing in English), they have
written a number of books and articles in their native language for the purpose of enriching local
knowledge and serving their communities. Some participants (Khyam, Fahed) have also pointed
out they sometimes struggle expressing their ideas in English while others considered themselves
fully bilingual and stated that they do not encounter any notable difficulties. Nonetheless, all
attested that their work is often rejected by international journals due to content-based aspects.
I believe that the so far unchallenged practice of EMP, which is part of the diffusion-of-
English paradigm, should be challenged for three main reasons: First, EMP disadvantages NNES
scholars who face numerous obstacles in their attempt to successfully write and publish in
English. Second, EMP propels inequality between central and peripheral countries and leads to
knowledge impoverishment. Third, EMP has detrimental effects on the status of local and
regional languages. Therefore, I would first suggest that it is necessary for NNES researchers to
engage in research that is of local and regional importance to help preserve their cultures and
languages. Second, language policy makers need to provide academic writing support and
training to NNES scholars and encourage linguistic diversity for it not only provides us with
various linguistic properties but also preserves other languages, and sparks creativity and
flexibility generated by interaction between languages (Dalby, 2002). By reaching a wide
readership within and outside the academia at the local and regional levels, NNES scholars will
eventually nurture the readership, stimulate discussion, and achieve an impact.
About the Autor:
Randa Sibahi has spent over fifteen years working with international students as an ESL
instructor in Saudi schools and colleges, She is highly motivated, and a very enthusiastic
educator. Her ultimate aim as an educator is to help students become global citizens who have
the 21st century skills that will enable them to succeed and prosper in the next decades. She is
currently an Ed D student at the University of Exeter.
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.6. No3 September 2015
English Triumphalism in Academic Writing: The Price of Global Visibility Sibahi
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
216
References
Altbach, P. G. (2009). Peripheries and centers: research universities in developing countries.
Asia Pacific Education Review, 10, (15), 27.
Ammon, U. (2003). Global English and the non-native speakers: Overcoming disadvantages. In
Language in the Twenty-First Century, H. Tonkin & Reagan (ed.), 23-34. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Ammon, U. (1998). Ist Deutsch noch Internationale Wissenschaftssprache? Englisch auch f¨ur
die Lehre an den Deutschschprachingen Hochschulen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Ammon, U. (1990). German or English? The problems of choice experienced by German
speaking scientists. In PeterNelde (ed.), Language Conflict and Minorities (pp. 33–51). Bonn:
D¨ummler.
Baker, C. (2001). Review of Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, Linguistic genocide in education – or
worldwide diversity and human rights? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5 (2), 279-283.
Benfield, J., & Howard, K. (2000). The language of science. European Journal of Cardio-
Thoracic Surgery 18, 642–8.
Bennett, K. (2012). „Epistemicide in Modern Academia: the political and cultural consequences
of English as Lingua Franca’. Paper, Stockholm Univ.
Bidlake E. (2008). Whose Voice Gets Read? English as the International Language of Scientific
Publication. e-pisteme 1 (1), 3-21.
Brutt-Griffler, J. (1998). Conceptual questions in English as a world language: taking up an
issue. World Englishes 17 (3), 381-392.
Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A Study of Its Development. Clevedon: Mutilingual
Matters Ltd.
Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2003). Shapers of published NNS research articles. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 12, 223, 243.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1996). “Non discursive” requirements in academic publishing, material
resources of periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production. Written
Communication, 13 (4), 435-472.
Canagarajah, A.S. (2002). Critical Academic Writing and Multilingual Students. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Conrad, A. W. (1996) The international role of English: The state if the discussion. In Fishman,
J. A., Conrad, A. W. & Rubal-Lopez, A. (eds.) Post-Imperial English: Status Change in
Former British and American Colonies, 1940-1990. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Crystal, D. (2001). Weaving a web of linguistic diversity. Retrieved December 15, 2006, from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2001/jan/25/tefl.guardianweekly
Dalby, A. (2002). Language in Danger: How Language Loss Threatens Our Future. London:
The Penguin Press.
Davies, A. (1996) Reviewing Article: Ironising the Myth of Linguicism. Journal of Multilingual
and Multicultural Development 17 (6), 485-496.
Davis, A.J., & Tschudin, V. (2007). “Publishing in English-language journals”. Nursing ethics,
14 (3), 45-430.
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.6. No3 September 2015
English Triumphalism in Academic Writing: The Price of Global Visibility Sibahi
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
217
De Swaan, A. (2001). English in the social sciences. In U. Ammon (Ed.), The dominance of
English as a language of science: Effects on other languages and language communities (pp.
71e83). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Du Gay, P. (1996). Consumption and Identity at Work. London: Sage.
Fishman, J. A. (1996) Introduction: Some empirical and theoretical issues. In Fishman, J. A.,
Conrad, A. W. & Rubal-Lopez, A. (eds.) Post-Imperial English: Status Change in Former
British and American Colonies, 1940-1990. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Flowerdew, J. (1999) “Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: the case of Hong
Kong”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (3), 43-264.
Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions. TESOL
Quarterly, 35,121-150.
Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the
nonnative English speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 127-150
Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2009). “English or Chinese? The trade-off between local and
international publication among Chinese academics in the humanities and social sciences”.
Journal of Second Language Writing 1: 1-16.
Giannoni, D. S. (2008). Medical writing at the periphery: the case of Italian journal editorials.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 97-107.
Gibbs, W. W. (1995). Trends in scientific communication: lost science in the third world.
Scientific American, August 76-83.
Graddol, D. (2006). English Next. London: British Council.
Jacoby, R. (1987). The last intellectuals: American culture in the age of academe. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Li, Y. (2007). Apprentice scholarly writing in a community of practice: an „„intraview‟‟ of an
NNES graduate student writing a research article. TESOL Quarterly, 41, (55), 79.
Li, Y., & Flowerdew, J. (2007). Shaping Chinese novice scientists‟ manuscripts for publication.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 16 (100), 117.
Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2004). Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English:
Negotiating interests, demands, and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, 38 (4), 663-688.
Lillis, T., & Curry, M.J. (2010). Academic Writing in a Global Context: The politics and
practices of publishing in English. London & New York: Routledge.
Lillis, T., & Curry, M.J. (2006). “Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars:
interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts”. Written
communication, 23 (1), 3-35.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Master, Peter (1999)
Editorial. English for Specific Purposes 18, 102–4.
Mauranen, A. (2003) “The corpus of English as a lingua franca in academic settings”. TESOL
quarterly, 37 (3), 513-27.
Medgyes, P., & Kaplan, R. B. (1992). Discourse in a foreign language: the example of
Hungarian scholars. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 98, 67-100.
Medgyes, P., & László, M. (2001) “The foreign language competence of Hungarian scholars: ten
years later”, in Ammon, U. (ed), The Dominance of English as a Language of Science: Effects
on Other Languages and Language Communities. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 261-86.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mufwene, S. (2001). The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.6. No3 September 2015
English Triumphalism in Academic Writing: The Price of Global Visibility Sibahi
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229-9327
218
Paiva, V.L.M.O., & Pagano, S.A. (2001) “English in Brazil with an outlook on its function as a
language of science”, in Ammon, U. (ed), The Dominance of English as a Language of
Science: Effects on Other Languages and Language Communities. New York: Mouton de
Gruyter, 425-46.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. Essex:
Pearson Education.
Pennycook, A., (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Peraz-Liantada, C. (2012). Scientific Discourse and the Rhetoric of Globalization: the Impact of
Culture and language. Continuum International Publishing Group. New York.
Phillipson, R., (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Phillipson, R., & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1995). 'Linguistic Rights and Wrongs'. Applied
Linguistics 16/4: 484-504.
Punch, K. F. (2001). Qualitative research practice: A guide .for social students and researchers.
London: Sage Publications.
Rapatahana, V., & Bunce, P. (2012). English Language as Hydra: Its Impacts on Non-English
Language Cultures. Linguistic Diversity ad language Rights.
Sano, H. (2002). “The world‟s lingua franca of science”. English Today 18: 45-49.
Short. J. R., Boniche, A., & Kim, Y. (2001). Cultural Globalization, Global English, and
Geography Journals Professional Geographer 53 1-11 Smith, T. (2000). Educational
Philosophy and Theory 32(1), 53-60.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2006). Language policy and linguistic human rights. In T. Ricento, (Ed.).
An introduction to language policy: Theory and method, (pp. 273 - 291). Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tardy, C. (2004). “The role of English in scientific communication: lingua franca or
Tyrannosaurus rex?” Journal of English for academic purposes, 3, 247-69.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003a). Handbook of mixed methods in social &
behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Tollefson, J. W. (2006). Critical theory in language policy. In T. Ricento, (Ed.) An introduction
to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 42-59). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Uzuner, S. (2008). Multilingual scholars‟ participation on core/global academic communities: a
literature review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 250-263.
Viereck, W. (1996). English in Europe: Its nativisation and use as a lingua franca, with special
reference to German speaking countries. In R. Hartmann (Ed.), The English language in
Europe (pp. 16-24). Exeter: Intellect
Willemyns, R. (2001) “English in linguistic research in Belgium”, in Ammon, U. (ed), The
Dominance of English as a Language of Science: Effects on Other Languages and Language
Communities. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 329-42.
Wolters, G. (2013). European Humanities in Times of Globalized Parochialism. Bollettino della
Società Filosofica Italiana, 208, 3-18.
Yigitoglu, N. (2010). Academic Writing in a Global Context: The Politics and Practices of
Publishing in English. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 216–217.
