research writing and nnss: from the editors

JOURNAL OF SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING, 1 (2), 123-139 (1992)

Research Writing and NNSs: From the Editors

HUGH GOSDEN

Tokyo Institute of Technology

This article focuses on the voried linguistic ond sociopragmatic skills required for effective international research reporting. In order to understand more clearly the demands of the immediate audience many English NNS (nonnative speaker) researchers are writing for, a survey of journal editors in North America ond the U.K. was carried out. This article reports the results of this survey; of particular interest are the language-related criteria which moy most influence consideration of NNS researchers’ papers. As a result of survey

findings, implications ond suggestions for the teaching of research writing to NNS researchers ore discussed.

English is an important medium of research communication for countless English NNS (nonnative speaker) researchers around the world. However, the teaching of Research English (RE) has received relatively little attention @wales, 1985, 1987) and this may be due, in part, to the task RE aims to support. In written research communication, writers are no longer attempting to satisfy the internal criteria of what Swales (1988) calls “norm-developed” tasks. For example, with undergraduate written assignments, professors set criteria for examinations, and their students are expected to show familiarity with a defined body of knowledge. In contrast, writing in the professional-academic community is defined as “norm-developing.” This implies persuasive reporting and

subtle negotiation through the review process with an external audience. In this way, the writing and publication of research papers constantly define the academic community’s more dynamic norms.

As indicated in a study by Myers (1985), the lengthy and complex process of publishing academic papers is formidable enough for native speakers (NSs) of English. With the extra burden of second-language proficiency, the objective of RE support is simply to play a role in assisting NNS researchers compete on an equal research basis. We may like to question the oft-quoted dominance of

I would like to thank three anonymous reviewers and the editors of JSLW for valuable comments

on earlier versions of this article. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Hugh Gosden, English Language

Section, Faculty of Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro-ku,

Tokyo 152 Japan.

123

124 H. Gosden

English as the lingua franca of research communication and in doing so appeal for a greater understanding of research reported in other languages. However, the perceived pressure of the medium is evident, and many young NNS researchers may feel their chances of future academic success could be limited by ignoring English language medium reporting, and hence, written proficiency.

Consequently, for NNS researchers and RE practitioners alike, a clear picture of the demands of the immediate audience, that is, the editors of academic journals whose criteria NNS researchers are attempting to satisfy, would be beneficial. More specifically, clarification of factors that may influence the consideration of submitted papers is needed. To this end, this article reports on a survey of scientific journal editors in North America and the U.K.

THE SURVEY

The Journals and Their Editors The criteria for selection were as follows:

1. The academic journals chosen are considered to be mainstream international publications in the hard sciences and were roughly divided among the broad disciplines of physics, chemistry, and biology. With the nature of interdisciplinary research fields, this included areas such as physicai chemistry, chemical physics, electronic chemistry, biochemistry, bio- technology, chemical engineering, and materials science.

2. The journals are edited in the U.S., Canada, or the U.K.; such choices were partly dictated by practical constraints but they do reflect popular destina- tions of submissions.

3. The journals publish regular length papers and only accept articles written in English.

Method of Survey A two-part questionnaire was designed and distributed to editors with a covering letter outlining the aims of the current project, which focuses on the writing of research papers by NNSs. (NNSs were simply defined as nonnative speakers of English, whether as a second or foreign language.) Part 1 comprised a multiple- choice section and Part 2, a series of 10 open-ended questions. A copy of the questionnaire as completed by one individual editor (with replies typewritten for clarity) is reproduced in the Appendix.

Returns A total of 299 questionnaires (US.: 146; Canada: 36; U.K.: 117) were sent to editors and associates of 166 journals; 154 replies (51.5%) were returned (U.S.: 49%; Canada: 31%; U.K.: 61%). Of the 154,116 were fully completed for Part 1,

Research Writing and NNSs 125

and data and commentary are based on this number. For Part 2, all 154 informants made some comments; however, not all questionnaires were 100% complete, and therefore, the sample size is indicated for each question. The generally good return rate for such a survey may be a reflection of editors’ positive concerns for the matters under investigation.

Questionnaire Part 1: Rationale The 10 aspects listed covered three main areas: sentence-level concerns, such as mechanical accuracy (No. 5) and lexis (No. 1); the discourse level with a focus on components of cohesion and coherence-topic/theme and paragraph development (Nos. 2-4)- and style/register (No. 6); they also included a sociopragmatic dimension specific to this highly refined research/discourse activity. The latter is derived from work by Myers (1985, 1990) who views the act of review and revision of an academic paper as “the negotiation of the status that the scientific community will assign to the text’s knowledge claim” (p. 593). Moreover, Myers suggests that claims and negotiations are the social processes in which science is constructed. This sociopragmatic dimension is naturally realized through linguistic resources, for example, a writer’s choices when making a claim about research results. A claim that is either too hedged or unrealistically bold will probably require time-consuming negotiation and revision. Therefore, both the level of claim (a research activity) and its subsequent expression (a discourse activity) need to be carefully appreciated. Questions 7, 8, 9, and 10 aimed to investigate the perceived validity of these aspects.

Findings and Comments: Part 1 Editors were asked to judge the degree of influence that the 10 aspects might have when considering publication of NNS submissions on a 3-point scale from great (3) or some (2) to no (1) influence. Results are presented in the form of a rank order of the 10 aspects according to mean (Figure 1, p. 126) and a graph comparing these mean values (Figure 2, p. 127).

It is clear that “submissions from NNSs of English” is a broad category for editors to comment on. Language-related problems inevitably vary according to numerous factors, for example, Ll origin. Moreover, subjective opinions about matters of influence are also likely to vary quite widely according to editors’ personal experiences. Nevertheless, my intention here is to draw some useful generalizations for the learning and teaching of research writing skills. There- fore, it is essential to highlight the aspects that appear to have the most negative influence on the review and revision processes, in particular, those which may seriously distract attention from judgment of a paper’s essential merits.

The first and second ranked aspects involve the cohesive linking (No. 3; M = 1.97) of sentences and/or propositions and coherent topic progression (No. 2;

126 H. Gosden

1 (W

2 (*a

3 (#5)

4 ($8)

5 (#7)

6 CM)

7 ($9)

8 (*lo)

Q (#9)

10 W)

logical and clear linking of sentences for the rsader cl.971

development of the topic from sentence to sentence in a coherent way [l.SS] use of grammatically correct sentences Cl.791

ability to manipulate skillfully the language used in making

this claim t1.781

appreciation of the level of claim that oen justifiably be

sade for their research El.763

orgsnisation of the different sections of a paper in a clear

and logical way Cl.741

appreciation of the status of their work in the wider

academic commun ity snd negotiation of this status in

subsequent correspondence with editors Cl.551

ability to manipulate the languege which reflects awareness of

this status Cl.523

writing in the style of academic written Euglish and not

everyday spoken &glish Cl.453

use of a wide renge of vocabulary Cl.441

Figure 1. Rank Order l-10 of Editors’ (N = 116) Perceptions of Influence-With Originol Question Number (#) ond Meon Score [ ]

M = 1.96). This reflects the fact that the most meaningful editorial help can generally only be given when the development of a writer’s argument is logical and clear. (Of course, it should be noted here that the highest mean, l-97, still indicates a perception slightly below some influence.)

In the review process, and consequently in the writing process itself, attention to these dynamic threads of discourse (Nos. 2 and 3) takes priority over simple grammatical accuracy (No. 5), ranked third (M = 1.79), although it is of course simplistic to minimize the need for mechanical accuracy in realizing both textual cohesion and coherence. Ranked fourth (M = 1.78) and fifth (M = 1.76) are the more subtle sociopragmatic aspects involving researchers’ rhetorical expression (No. 8) and appreciation (No. 7) of their claims. Global management of the different sections of a paper (No. 4) appeared next (M = 1.74). Aspects reflecting a researcher’s status within the academic community (No. 9; M = 1.55) and (No. 10; M = 1.52), matters of style/register (No. 6; it4 = 1.45), and lexical variety (No. I; M = 1.44) have the lowest mean values.

Figure 3 shows the frequency distribution of the three degrees of influence. Although replies appear to be quite widely spread, the relatively clear influence of Numbers 2 and 3 is confirmed by the fact that these two aspects were given the highest number of some and great influence responses and the fewest no influence responses.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 2. Part 1: Editors’ Perceptions of Influence

INFLUENCE

q 1: no

G 2: some

3:gfea

Figure 3. Part 1: Frequency Distribution of Responses

128 H. Gosden

Questionnaire Part 2: Rationale Part 2 aims to complement the multiple-choice format of Part 1, further investigating the mechanics of the review process and the related language dimension. It also raises politically sensitive questions posed by researchers such as Swales (1987) regarding potential bias against NNS submissions. The final question invites open comment on the situation, according to the editors’ views.

The format of Part 2, where categories of response are not predetermined, means that data gathered are of a highly subjective nature. To be able to fashion this qualitative data into an interpretable form, categories were synthesized from replies. Some question types (Nos. 1-3, 6-8) imply more polar ties, sometimes, no) replies, and these are dealt with first. The following data are reported: the total sample of replies for a specific question 8; the total for an individual category (n); and the percentage (rounded to 1.0% throughout) for that individual category. Comments are grouped according to related themes of questions and include some quotations from editors.

Findings and Comments: Part 2 1. Do NNS researchers often ask for language errors or “awkward expres-

sions” to be corrected when submitting?

n %

yes 21 15 sometimes 23 17 rarely 8 7 no 83 61

(N= 135) 100% 2. Is it irritating or disadvantageous to do so?

n %

yes 25 21 somewhat 14 12 not really 8 7 no 72 60

(N= 119) 100% 3. If manuscripts are recommended for publication, are they returned with

suggested language corrections by referees or yourself?

n %

yes 85 67 usually 11 9 sometimes 26 20 no 5 4

(N = 127) 100%


Comment Clearly, a great deal of unsolicited language assistance is given to NNS researchers by editors and referees. Some indicated that in their “Instructions to Authors, ” a promise of help with “points of grammar and style where necessary” is given. Varying review procedures were reported. After a brief reading, editors may immediately return the manuscript to the author with a request for corrections, even before technical review. If judged as readable, others will send it out for in-depth peer review and leave the decision to the referee. In return, many referees will simultaneously review and edit extensively; some will attempt a few pages before losing patience; and others will simply refuse to look at it until it is improved. Of course, many large-scale editorial operations employ the services of technical rewriters, sometimes highly qualified themselves in relevant fields, and this inevitably smoothes the review/editing process. However, many specifically complained that this was not the case with their journals. Although the majority of respondents indicated that help is given in good spirit, some suggested that NNS submittees rely too much on the goodwill of editors and referees; some editors believe they should fully accept the burden of presenting only well-written papers, that is, “seek native-speaker help first and not wait to be asked.” Several editors mentioned that with journals commonly having rejection rates in excess of 70%, they are, in effect, looking for reasons to reject manuscripts, and “linguistic grounds are as good a reason as any for rejection.”

6. Is there the serious danger for NNS researchers that the value and quality of their research is disguised by the quality of its reporting?

yes

generally no no

n %

52 38 49 36

(N= I;:, 26

100%

Comment It must be strongly emphasized that editors tended to concur that “acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is primarily based on scientific merit.” In general, “first-rate work is not often obscured by poor presentation.” However, with “borderline papers” and “mediocre science,” there is a danger, and this is reflected in the fact that only 26% of replies clearly denied the possibility that the merits of a paper may be disguised by poor reporting at the initial review stage.

7. Do you feel objectively that there may ever be indirect (or direct) editorial

130 H. Gosden

bias against NNS researchers’ submitted papers (from any particular part of the world)?

n 940

yes 26 19 possibly 22 16 generally no 15 11

no 72 54 (N= 135) 100%

Comment The thorny question of bias against NNS submissions provoked replies ranging from “of course there’s bias” to “yes, bias in favour!” with approximately one third indicating the possibility for various reasons. There may be bias against certain regions, and it appears that some editors are aware that a particular submission will not be reviewed fairly simply because it comes from X country. However, rather than being based on linguistic grounds, reasons are generally based in the science culture. “I tend to be more prejudiced by attitudes about the quality of work to be expected from different cultures; some encourage multiple publication; some only cite compatriots;. . . too much ‘me-too’ work.” Some editors have also experienced accusations of bias from NNS researchers and generally feel the latter “are more inclined to ascribe their failure (i.e., rejected paper) to short-tempered reviewers than the low quality of their work.”

Conversely, some editors mentioned with regret the reluctance and evident lack of confidence of NNS researchers to submit papers. Many journals actively encourage submissions from all over the world because it reflects a broad readership and an international status.

8. Considering the vast number of papers submitted to journals, are there spectfic guidelines for screening papers submitted to your journal by NNS researchers, or from any particular part of the world?

yes

no

n %

6 6

(N= 1:) 94

100%

Comment Incoming papers are treated in exactly the same way, irrespective of provenance, with no specific screening guidelines for NNS manuscripts; that is, there is no specific affirmative action taken by journals on behalf of NNS researchers.

The remaining questions (Nos. 4, 5, 9, and 10) are more open-ended and categories have again been synthesized from replies. Naturally, informants were


free to list more than one concern and/or category they believed relevant, and this is reflected in the total number of comments made (N). However, the actual number of editors replying is also indicated (n).

4. What types of language error are most frequently corrected?

n

A. Relating to grammar/syntax 1. simple syntax problems, poor sentence structure 63 2. use of definite/indefinite articles 38

3. incorrect tense 14 4. incorrect subject-verb agreement 13

5. punctuation 3

B. Relating to lexis and register/style 1. inappropriate choice of word 29 2. spelling 21

C. Relating to discourse 1. “tangled logic”

(N= 18:) (n = 145)

5. What types of language error are generally not corrected? n

A. Relating to grammar/syntax 1. awkward constructions that require rewriting 26 2. “some minor grammatical errors” 7 3. use of articles 5 4. verbs, tense 4

5. punctuation 4 B. Relating to lexis and register/style

1. idiosyncratic choices (“sounds funny but ok”) 31 2. spelling 1

C. Relating to discourse 1. problems with organization of paper/paragraphs 7 2. “coherence, flow” 4

D. All errors corrected 18 (N = 107)

(n=91)

Comment

%

34 20

7 7 2

15 11

4 100%

%

24 6 5 4 4

29 1

6 4

17 100%

Simple sentence-level errors are generally corrected (4A); more awkward syntactic infelicities and stylistic choices are generally not (5A1, Bl, Cl). Given the need to avoid publication delays, errors that can be quickly corrected

132 H. Gosden

(articles, tense, S-V agreement) will be, that is, down to the threshold level where clarity of argument starts to be affected, and this generally starts with “awkward constructions” (5Al) requiring excessive rewriting (“up to a few sentences”). “After all, it’s not my paper, they’re not my concepts.” This is reflected in the low number (4%) who would, at this stage, attempt to deal with “tangled logic.” However, Number 5 proved rather ambiguous. It is clear there are errors that will not be corrected due to the need to rewrite (5Al). In addition, there are idiosyncratic lexical choices (“quaint but clear,” “awkward but understandable,” “ clear but cumbersome”) that are generally ignored (5Bl). Seventeen percent replied that all errors were corrected (5D), and this probably reflects the use of in-house technical rewriters.

9. Can you roughly estimate your journal’s acceptance rates of papers written by (i) English native speakers (ii) nonnative English speakers?

Comment

Many editors commented that they could not provide accurate data for Number 9. Others (64 returns) suggested “guestimates.” Meaningful generalization is therefore problematic; however, acceptance rates did vary from 15% to 95% for both (i) and (ii).

10. How would you sum up the main problems for NNS researchers in

competing on an equal research basis when submitting papers?

A. Clear and logical presentation of results/discussion. B. If the science is good, there is little problem;

however, mediocre science combined with mediocre communication is a potential problem.

C. Isolation factors, consequences of being “out of touch. ”

D. The extra time, effort, and patience required to get NNS researchers’ papers published.

E. Presentation, type/graphics quality.

n %

31 28

27 25

25 23

21 19

(N = 10;) 5

100% (n = 97)

Comment This most open-ended question afforded a wide range of interesting comments related to previous sections.

1. As seen by the editors in this field, the crux of the presented argument lies in the rhetorical manipulation of discourse in explaining “what you did, why, what you found out and what you interpret from this.” This is reflected

2.

3.

4.

5.


in the large number of comments on the need for clarity and precision in evaluating relevant research and making claims (10A). For the latter, one editor advised against the overuse of conditional sentences. Some commented that ambiguity of expression may be rooted in a cultural dimension, in “a different philosophy of writing, according to which results or conclusions are not directly stated but instead only hinted at.” This recalls Hinds’ (1987) notion of participant responsibility in communication. Hinds suggested that there may be different culture-dependent ways of looking at the communication process, where “it is the responsibility of the listener (or reader) to understand what it is that the speaker or author had intended to say” (p. 144). However, this is clearly perceived as being different from the rhetorical subtleties behind the deliberate hedging of claims, the purpose of which is to avoid strongly negative feedback from the academic community. Again, it was stressed that “it’s the science that counts every time.” However, not all science can be dynamic and evolutionary. The steady reporting and dissemination of routine research is extremely vital. However, it may be at this level that “marginal” and “borderline” papers are most

frequently encountered and are thus at greater risk. The broad term “isolation” covers many causes, for example: not careful!y reading “Instructions to Authors”; unfamiliarity with the journal and its academic level; not reviewing previous literature well and relating to others’ work, possibly due to a lack of literature/library facilities; a lack of awareness of what constitutes publishable research; and unfamiliarity with the broad (and unwritten) “rules of the game.” “Few manuscripts survive referees’ scrutiny entirely unscathed.” With the demands of reviewing, discussions about content, rewriting, correspondence, and further revision, time will always be against those with language difficulties and without access to language support. At this stage of the process, inadequate reporting skills will create more delays than debate over content. All other things being equal, appearance and presentation can matter; however, “poor science often indicates poor thinking and therefore poor expression and presentation.” This may also be a question of the availability of material resources, such as computers, graphics software, and quality printers.

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS FROM THE SURVEY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE TEACHING

OF RESEARCH WRITING

The replies from editors systematically confirm the intuitions that many practitioners involved in this field undoubtedly already have. However, the purpose of the survey was twofold. First, the immediate aim was to gain a

134 H. Gosden

clearer idea of the language-related criteria which may most influence consideration of papers by NNS researchers. Familiarity with these underlying criteria may assist the individual writer to gain greater control over both the writing process and subsequent review procedures. Second, insights gained from the survey can contribute to the design and implementation of more effective RE writing syllabuses. With this in mind, conclusions and pedagogical implications focus on six areas:

1. Components of textual cohesion and coherence. 2. Integration of research article reading/writing skills. 3. Avoidance of time delays in the review/publication process. 4. The social context of research writing. 5. The need for more detailed analysis of Results and Discussion sections. 6. The need to assist editors in framing guidelines for NNS researchers.

Components of ‘Ibxtual Cohesion and Coherence It is hardly surprising that in Part 1 editors stress the need for the clear and coherent development of a researcher’s topic. Greater attention, therefore, should be paid to local discoursal expectations, that is, the on-line, chunk-by-chunk processing of text by the reader (Swales, 1990b). In supporting research writing activities, there needs to be a strong focus on what Davies (1988) calls the manipulative potential of academic discourse, in both mechanical and rhetorical senses, for example: awareness of the effects on readers of functional rules of information structure (Brown & Yule, 1983); the expected given-new flow of information in texts (Glatt, 1982); marked and unmarked theme choices in academic discourse (Davies, 1988); patterns of topical progression (Lautamatti, 1987); and devices, such as the wide range of fronted adjuncts, used to structure and develop a writer’s topic (Davies, 1989). In sum, Bazerman (1988) empha- sizes that “writing is choice making, the evaluation of options. . . .To study choices is to notice what they accomplish and what they don’t” (p. 13).

Integration of Research Article Reading/Writing Skills The research article (RA) is a highly conventionalized product, and when readers recognize the RA as a familiar genre, it is because it fulfills their expectations as readers. “This close match provides a powerful boost to coherence for the reader and a powerful boost to organisation for the writer” (Swales, i99Ob, p. 190). Thus, we can see the rationale behind the integration of writing and reading skills in RE courses. Indeed, for many NNS researchers, reading RAs is likely to be a primary source of learning how to write RAs. The written product evidently provides a strong pedagogic/heuristic framework; being able to “borrow” phrases and to pick out “smart expressions” from


published articles written by English NSs are considered necessary and valuable

skills. However, it is clear that this does not, on its own, allow for the development and independent learning of composing skills, and hence, the emphasis on textual cohesion and coherence.

Avoidance of Time Delays in the Review-Publication Process The preceding focus on top-down processing does not imply NNSs are advised to rely on reviewers and editors to clean up minor errors in their texts, despite the goodwill expressed. Everything possible should be done to avoid delays that contribute to “the extra time, effort and patience required to get NNS researchers’ papers published” (reply to Part 2, 10D). It should not be presumed that language help will be given, so it is quite natural to suggest papers be thoroughly checked prior to submission, using whatever assistance is available.

The Social Context of Research Writing However, in RA writing, there should be less preoccupation with simple mechanical accuracy. Where formative English-learning experiences have generally been based on reading-translation methodology, the same cognitive learning styles tend to persist. In this connection, the role of RE support courses is frequently to challenge writers’ existing composition strategies. For example, my recent personal experience teaching both novice and experienced NNS researchers in Japan is that there is often an overexaggerated concern for “dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s.” This is likely to be detrimental when it is at the expense of a broader realization of the social context of research writing and the ability of writers to see their texts as others see them, Horowitz’s (1988) “social sense of coherence. ”

At many stages of answering the questionnaire, editors took the opportunity to point out that comments could equally apply to English NSs. This indicates the high degree of shared problems in written research reporting not solely related to Ll/L2 proficiency. Bazerman (1988) highlights the desirability of a more informed interdisciplinary approach to research writing:

Writing is a social action; texts help organize social activities and social structure; and reading is a form of social participation; thus, saying something about writing is saying something about sociology. (p. 10)

This comment echoes Swales’s (1985) call for greater inclusion of related areas of interest outside those of traditional second-language-specific fields, for example, studies in the social sciences such as Myers (1985, 1990). In this way, RE practitioners involved in teaching writing at this level will gain insight into the social nature and context of research reporting. This is relevant to language

136 H. Gosden

because subtle implications realized by a writer’s lexical and grammatical choices form part of this social context, for example, the expression of claims, and the important threads of writer evaluation that run throughout texts, such as appropriate evaluation of other researchers’ work in the field (Gosden, 1991a). In essence, a part of the apprenticeship for all novice researchers is learning such unwritten “rules of the game.”

The Need for More Detaiied Analysis of Results aud Discussion Sections

In the teaching of writing at all levels, there has been a significant shift away from the text to the task and the task environment. However, there is still a central role for the written product, as evidenced by increasing interest in the potential of genre and discourse analysis in helping raise awareness about the task environment. Swales (1990a) commented that the literature exploring the textual properties of the RA is quite extensive (see Swales’s overview, 199Oa, pp. 131-132). There has generally been a dominant focus on RA Introduction sections. However, editors’ replies strongly emphasized the need for the “clear and logical presentation of Results and Discussion sections” {reply to Part 2, IOA). Therefore, more detailed functional analysis of the task environment would seem desirable, both for RE practitioners conducting courses and for self- access in style manuals. Such analysis could highlight generic characteristics, such as rhetorical structure, conceptual organization, lexis, tense and voice, citation patterns, and authorial comment.

The Need to Assist Editors in Framing Guidelines for NNS Researchers

One editor commented, in response to Part 2 Question 8, “continuity and coherence are primary, but I don’t know how to frame guidelines [for NNS researchers]. *’ This feeling was echoed by other editors, some of whom requested further correspondence and details of the survey results to feed into their existing guidelines for NNSs. This situation inevitably suggests that editors themselves may appreciate advice from those involved in language-related fields. They comment that it is simply for the good of their own journals, for which they pursue the highest standards through quality research. This leads me to conclude on a broader note.

From the more general context of investment in human and material resources, many diverse public and private institutions around the world invest heavily in their specific fields of expertise. Written reporting in the professions is a natural culmination of the many levels of tasks and processes involved. For


this reason, simply from an economic viewpoint of cost and benefit, it can be

emphasized (Gosden, 1991b) that it is a false economy to spend precious

resources on the “real work,” and yet neglect the potential for optimal

international reporting to the widest possible audience, where this is both desired and desirable.

REFERENCES

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davies, E (1988). Reading between the lines: Thematic choice as a device for presenting writer

viewpoint in academic discourse. Especialist, 9, 173-200. Davies, E (1989). Developing competence in academic discourse: The role of language awareness

(Working Paper No. 1). University of Liverpool, U.K., English Language Unit.

Glatt, B. (1982). Defining thematic progressions and their relationship to reader comprehension. In

M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process and structure of written

discourse (pp. 87-103). London: Academic. Gosden, H. (1991a). Academic writing, language awareness and the EFL writer. The Language

Teacher. 15(5), 3-6. Gosden, H. (1991b). Teaching Research English to ESL researchers: Questions of cost and benefit.

Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 2(l), 139-153. Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. Kaplan

(Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 141-152). Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley. Horowitz, D. (1988). To see our text as others see it: Toward a social sense of coherence. JALT

Journal, 10, 91-100. Lautamatti, L. (1987). Observations on the development of the topic of simplified discourse. In U.

Connor & R. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis ofL.7 tear (pp. 87-113).

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Myers, G. (1985). Texts as knowledge claims: The social construction of two biology articles. Social Studies of Science, 15, 593-630.

Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scienrifc knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

&vales, J. (1985). ESP-The heart of the matter or the end of the affair? In R. Quirk & H.

Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world (pp. 212-223). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press/British Council.

Swales, J. (1987). Utilizing the literatures in teaching the research paper. TESGL Quarterly, 21, 41-68.

Swales, J. (1988). Discourse communities, genres and English as an international language. World Englishes, 7, 211-220.

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

Cambridge University Press. &ales, J. (1990b). Nonnative speaker graduate engineering students and their introductions: Global

coherence and local management. In U. Connor & A. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 189-206). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

138 H. Gosden

APPENDIX

A Completed Example of Questionnaire: Part 1

E'art It is anticipated that quality of research, rather than quality of research report& has prime inportance. However, with reference to personal ezperience, what deee of itxflum~m~ht these follow&! 10 aspeots have when considering publication of a paper submitted by a NXS researcher? Please u~fl;m~ele of l-3, where 3 = great influence, 2 = sme influence and 1 = no

2.

3.

1.

5.

5.

use of a wide renge of vocabulery:

development of the topic from sentence to sentence in a coherent my:

logical aud clear linking of sentences for the reader:

organisation of the different sections of a paper in a clear and logical way:

use of grammatically correct sentences:

writing in the style of academic written English and not everyday spoken English:

appreciation of the level of claim that can justifiably be sade for their research:

ability to manipulate skillfully the language used in making this claim:

appreciation of the status of their work in the wider academic commnity and negotiation of this status in subsequent correspondence with editors:

10. ability to manipulate the language which reflects awareness of this status and its negotiation:

2

3

2

2

3

2

2

3

2

1

Research Writing and NNSs

A Completed Example of Questionnaire: Part 2

Part: Please answer the following questions:

139

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

6.

6.

10

Do hWS researchers often ask for 1 VWe errors or 'awkward expressions' to be corrected when submitting.

txn-'uFrM',sMBTMgs

Is it irritating or disadvantageous to do so?

PES

Ifmanuscri ts are recosmended for publication are theyretumed .su&3ested f-age corrections by referees or &xmself? DFTl?lBYRRFBREB, -BYRYsBLF

with

Uhat types of language error are most freguently corrected?

slH?L8-cALm-

b'hat types of languwe error are generally& corrected?

lNJSEREUiTlXlUD-OF'I'RRWOR-CNOFE'APRR

Is there the serious danger for ML5 researchers that the value end quality of their research is disguised by the quality of its reporta?

YE

Do you feel objectively that there say ever be indirect <or direct) editorial bias inst NNS researohers* particular part o Fa the wrld?

submitted papers f-any

cMsiderin8 the vastnumberofpaperssubmitted tojournals, are theg ific guidelines for screen

~researohers, or frasr anyparzcularpart of the world? m$p*rssu~ittad toyour~oumal

(i)X_ (ii)__ IDM-THAVBTHIS~A

research writing and nnss: from the editors

Documents