1887
Volume 3, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2590-0994
  • E-ISSN: 2590-1001
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In line with recent interest in mediation as a widespread phenomenon in multilingual academic publication in English, this paper describes and exemplifies a method of researching production practices that is based on text histories. The evolution of rhetorical patterning in two published articles by established Spanish biomedical authors is used to explore the authors’ writing and how their texts were evaluated by an in-house language editor and later by journal gatekeepers. Semi-structured interviews with the two authors using talk around texts reveals commonalities and differences in author orientations towards mediation from discourse community members (journal gatekeepers) and the language professional (the in-house editor). Textual analysis as exemplified by a single rhetorically significant modification proposed by the language editor to each of the two manuscripts is used to compare the selective engagement of one author with the language editor’s contributions against the extensive reassessment of the other author in response to similar feedback. Discussion highlights the advantages and limitations of the modified text history and genre approach to understanding mediation and author orientations to mediation. Implications for textual mediation practices are discussed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jerpp.21006.sha
2022-06-02
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bazerman, C., & Prior, P. A.
    (2003) What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.4324/9781410609526
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609526 [Google Scholar]
  2. Belcher, D.
    (2007) Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 1–22. 10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Burgess, S., & Lillis, T. M.
    (2013) The contribution of language professionals to academic publication: Multiple roles to achieve common goals. InV. Matarese (Ed.), Supporting research writing: Roles and challenges in multilingual settings (pp.1–15). Chandos. 10.1016/B978‑1‑84334‑666‑1.50001‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-666-1.50001-1 [Google Scholar]
  4. Burrough-Boenisch, J.
    (2003) Shapers of published NNS research articles. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 223–243. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(03)00037‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00037-7 [Google Scholar]
  5. Burrough-Boenisch, J., & Matarese, V.
    (2013) The authors’ editor: Working with authors to make drafts fit for purpose. InV. Matarese (Ed.), Supporting research writing: Roles and challenges in multilingual settings (pp.173–189). Chandos. 10.1016/B978‑1‑84334‑666‑1.50011‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-666-1.50011-4 [Google Scholar]
  6. Canagarajah, A. S.
    (1996) “Nondiscursive” requirements in academic publishing, material resources of periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production. Written Communication, 13(4), 435–472. 10.1177/0741088396013004001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013004001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Casanave, C. P.
    (2003) Looking ahead to more sociopolitically-oriented case study research in L2 writing scholarship: (But should it be called “post-process”?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 85–102. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(03)00002‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00002-X [Google Scholar]
  8. Cho, S.
    (2004) Challenges of entering discourse communities through publishing in English: Perspectives of nonnative-speaking doctoral students in the United States of America. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 3(1), 47–72. 10.1207/s15327701jlie0301_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327701jlie0301_3 [Google Scholar]
  9. Englander, K.
    (2006) Revision of scientific manuscripts by nonnative-English-speaking scientists in response to journal editors’ criticism of the language. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 3(2), 129–161. 10.1558/japl.v3i2.129
    https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v3i2.129 [Google Scholar]
  10. Flowerdew, J.
    (1999) Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 123–145. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(99)80125‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80125-8 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2000) Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 127–150. 10.2307/3588099
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588099 [Google Scholar]
  12. Flowerdew, J., & Wang, S. H.
    (2016) Author’s editor revisions to manuscripts published in international journals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 321, 39–52. 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.03.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gosden, H.
    (1995) Success in research article writing and revision: A social-constructionist perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 14(1), 37–57. 10.1016/0889‑4906(94)00022‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)00022-6 [Google Scholar]
  14. Harwood, N., Austin, L., & Macaulay, R.
    (2009) Proofreading in a UK university: Proofreaders’ beliefs, practices, and experiences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(3), 166–190. 10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hyland, K.
    (2000) Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing (1st ed.). Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hynninen, N.
    (2020) Moments and mechanisms of intervention along textual trajectories: Norm negotiations in English-medium research writing. Text & Talk. Advance online publication. 10.1515/text‑2019‑0303
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-0303 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kamler, B.
    (2010) Revise and resubmit: The role of publication brokers. InC. Aitchison, B. Kamler, & A. Lee (Eds.), Publishing pedagogies for the doctorate and beyond (pp.64–82). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kerans, M. E.
    (2001) Eliciting substantive revision of manuscripts for peer review through process-oriented conferences with Spanish scientists. InC. M. Lahoz (Ed.), Trabajos en lingüística aplicada (pp.339–347). University of Barcelona.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kim, E.-Y. J.
    (2019) Korean Scholars’ use of for-pay editors and perceptions of ethicality. Publications, 7(1), 21. https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/1/21
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Li, Y.
    (2006) A doctoral student of physics writing for publication: A sociopolitically-oriented case study. English for Specific Purposes, 25(4), 456–478. 10.1016/j.esp.2005.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  21. Li, Y., & Flowerdew, J.
    (2007) Shaping Chinese novice scientists’ manuscripts for publication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 100–117. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lillis, T. M.
    (2008) Ethnography as method, methodology, and “deep theorizing”: Closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication, 25(3), 353–388. 10.1177/0741088308319229
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088308319229 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lillis, T. M., & Curry, M. J.
    (2006a) Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts. Written Communication, 23(1), 3–35. 10.1177/0741088305283754
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088305283754 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2006b) Reframing notions of competence in scholarly writing: From individual to networked activity. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 531, 63–78. https://riull.ull.es/xmlui/handle/915/2169
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2010) Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2015) The politics of English, language and uptake: The case of international academic journal article reviews. AILA Review, 281, 127–150. 10.1075/aila.28.06lil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.28.06lil [Google Scholar]
  27. Lillis, T. M., & Scott, M.
    (2007) Defining academic literacies research: Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 5–32. 10.1558/japl.v4i1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v4i1.5 [Google Scholar]
  28. Luo, N., & Hyland, K.
    (2017) Intervention and revision: Expertise and interaction in text mediation. Written Communication, 34(4), 414–440. 10.1177/0741088317722944
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088317722944 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2019) “I won’t publish in Chinese now”: Publishing, translation and the non-English speaking academic. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 391, 37–47. 10.1016/j.jeap.2019.03.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2020) International publishing as a networked activity: Collegial support for Chinese scientists. Applied Linguistics, 42(1), 164–185. 10.1093/applin/amz071
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz071 [Google Scholar]
  31. Martinez, R., & Graf, K.
    (2016) Thesis supervisors as literacy brokers in Brazil. Publications, 4(3), 26. https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/4/3/26
    [Google Scholar]
  32. McDowell, L., & Liardét, C. L.
    (2019) Japanese materials scientists’ experiences with English for research publication purposes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 371, 141–153. 10.1016/j.jeap.2018.11.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.11.011 [Google Scholar]
  33. Shashok, K.
    (2001) Author’s editors: Facilitators of science information transfer. Learned Publishing, 141, 113–121. 10.1087/095315101300059495
    https://doi.org/10.1087/095315101300059495 [Google Scholar]
  34. Shaw, O., & Voss, S.
    (2017) The delicate art of commenting: Exploring different approaches to editing and their implications for the author-editor relationship. InM. Cargill & S. Burgess (Eds.), Publishing research as an additional language: Practices, pathways and potentials (pp.71–86). University of Adelaide Press. 10.20851/english‑pathways‑04
    https://doi.org/10.20851/english-pathways-04 [Google Scholar]
  35. Shchemeleva, I.
    (2021) “There’s no discrimination, these are just the rules of the game”: Russian scholars’ perception of the research writing and publication process in English. Publications, 9(1), 8. Retrieved on16 February 2022fromhttps://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/9/1/8
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Sheldon, E.
    (2011) Rhetorical differences in RA introductions written by English L1 and L2 and Castilian Spanish L1 writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(4), 238–251. 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  37. Solin, A., & Hynninen, N.
    (2018) Regulating the language of research writing: Disciplinary and institutional mechanisms. Language and Education, 32(6), 494–510. 10.1080/09500782.2018.1511727
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1511727 [Google Scholar]
  38. Swales, J. M.
    (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Tribble, C.
    (2017) ELFA vs. genre: A new paradigm war in EAP writing instruction?Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 251, 30–44. 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ventola, E., & Mauranen, A.
    (1991) Nonnative writing and native revising of scientific articles. InE. Ventola (Ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses (pp.457–492). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110883527.457
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883527.457 [Google Scholar]
  41. Willey, I., & Tanimoto, K.
    (2012) “Convenience editing” in action: Comparing English teachers’ and medical professionals’ revisions of a medical abstract. English for Specific Purposes, 31(4), 249–260. 10.1016/j.esp.2012.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2012.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2013) “Convenience editors” as legitimate participants in the practice of scientific editing: An interview study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(1), 23–32. 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.10.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.10.007 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2015) “We’re drifting into strange territory here”: What think-aloud protocols reveal about convenience editing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 271, 63–83. 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  44. Wood, A.
    (2001) International scientific English: The language of research scientists around the world. InJ. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for Academic Purposes (pp.71–83). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524766.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524766.008 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jerpp.21006.sha
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jerpp.21006.sha
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error