Linguistic Disadvantage and Authorial Identity in Research Articles Written by Native English and Thai Writers in International Publication

Darunee Yotimart, Noor Hashima Abd. Aziz

Abstract


Research have reported that one of the challenges faced by non-native English writers to have their research articles (RAs) accepted by English-medium journals is to fulfill the journals’ expectations in terms of linguistic aspect. In addition, non-native English writers seem to be having the problem in expressing their authorial identity which is needed to build one’s academic arguments. Therefore, this research was conducted to 1) explore whether linguistic disadvantage exists among native English writers or Thai writers in international publication, and 2) discover how the native English and Thai writers assert their identities through different rhetorical purposes of RAs. Eight university lecturers in Applied Linguistics (AL) from a few universities in Thailand were interviewed  to understand  their  views on the issues of  writing  for scholarly  publication  in  the  English  language. The findings revealed two salient emerging themes:  (1) the role of linguistic disadvantage and (2) variation in authorial identity between native English and Thai writers. The study has found that linguistic disadvantage exists among the Thai writers. The native English writers expressed their authorial identity overtly but the Thai writers deferred their authorial identity. It is suggested that teachers in Thailand emphasize more on the knowledge of linguistic aspect required in international publication and the effective use of linguistic realization of authorial identity in academic writing.

 


Keywords


Linguistic disadvantage, authorial identity, research articles, rhetorical purpose, native English writers, Thai writers, international publication

Full Text:

PDF

References


Al Fadda, H. (2012). Difficulties in academic writing: From the perspective of King Saud University Postgraduate Students. English Language Teaching Journal, 5(3), 123-130.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. London: Sage.

Cadman, K. (1997). Thesis writing for international students: a question of identity?, English for Specific Purposes, 16, 3-14.

Chalapati, S. (2007).The internationalization of higher education in Thailand: Case studies of two English-medium business graduate programs. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), RMIT University, Melbourne.

Curry, M. J., and Lillis, T. M. (2010). Academic research networks: Accessing resources for English-medium publishing. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 281-295.

Flowerdew, J. (1999). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 243-264.

Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 121–150.

Flowerdew, J. & Wang, S. H. (2015). Identity in Academic Discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 81–99.

Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the world; Cultural issues in academic writing. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.

Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles.

English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00012-0).

Hyland, K. (2002a). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56(4), 351-358

Hyland, K. (2002b). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatic, 34, 1091-1112.

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.

Hyland, K. (2012). Disciplinary Identities: Individuality and Community in Academic Discourse. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58–69

Hunston, S. & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. In Hunston, S. and G. Thompson (Eds.). Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 1-27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity; The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Ivanic, R., & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 3-33.

Jaroongkhongdach, W, Todd, R.W., Keyuravong, S., & Hall, D. (2012). Differences in quality between Thai and international research articles in ELT. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 194–209.

Kamkhien, A. (2014). Linguistic features of evaluative stance: Finding from research article discussions. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 54-69

Kanoksilapatham, B. (2007). Writing scientific research articles in Thai and English: similarities and differences. Silpakorn University International Journal, 7, 172–203.

Kuhi, D., Tofigh, M. & Babaie, R. (2013). Writers’ self-representation in academic writing: the case of computer engineering research articles by English versus Iranian writers. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 2(3), 35-48.

Lin, M.H. (2013). A corpus-based approach to identity construction of L1 and L2 writers in academic discourse: An investigation of writers' self-representation in research articles in two disciplines. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Purdue, United States.

MaCrostie, J. (2008). Writer visibility in EFL learner academic writing: A corpus-based study. ICAME Journal, 32, 97-114.

Martin-Martin, P. (2008). The mitigation of scientific claims in research papers: a comparative study. International Journal of English Studies, 8 (2), 133-152.

Okamura, A. (2006). How do Japanese researchers cope with language difficulties and succeed in scientific discourse in English. The Economic Journal of Takasaki City University of Economics, 48(3), 61-78

Pérez-Llantada, C. (2007). Native and non-native English scholars publishing research. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4 (2): 217–238.

Petch-Tyson, Stephanie. (1998). Writer/reader visibility in EFL written discourse. In S. Granger, (Ed.). Learner English on Computer (pp.107–118). New York, NY: Longman.

Politzer-Ahles, S., Holliday, J., Girolamo, T., Spychalska, M. & Berkson, K.H. (2016). Is Linguistic injustice a myth? A response to Hyland (2016), Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, 3–8.

Prince, A. (2000). Writing through cultures: The thesis writing experiences of five postgraduate research students from non-English speaking backgrounds and cultures, (MA Thesis), Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, University of Melbourne.

Pupipat, A. (1998). Scientific writing and publishing in English in Thailand: The perceptions of Thai scientists and editors. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Teachers College, Columbia University.

Scott M (1996). Wordsmith tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shaw, P. (1991). Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Sukhanindr, M. (2008). Hedging in research articles about English language teaching written by Thai and native speakers of English. (MA Thesis). Department of Foreign Language. Kasetsart University. Bangkok. Thailand.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 50, 23-36.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.5p.206

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.