1887
Volume 7, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2215-1931
  • E-ISSN: 2215-194X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Achieving nativeness in L2 pronunciation is not critical, nor is it critical for writing about L2 pronunciation. Using the experience of an L2 writer whose paper was rejected because of nonnative written features, this paper argues that it is past time for editors and reviewers to reject nativelike writing as a criterion for acceptance or rejection of an otherwise well-constructed contribution to research.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jslp.21051.lev
2022-01-19
2022-05-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Matsuda, A., & Matsuda, P. K.
    (2010) World Englishes and the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 369–374. 10.5054/tq.2010.222222
    https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.222222 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ramírez-Castañeda, V.
    (2020) Disadvantages in preparing and publishing scientific papers caused by the dominance of the English language in science: The case of Colombian researchers in biological sciences. PLoS ONE15(9): e0238372. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0238372
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238372 [Google Scholar]
  3. Römer, U.
    (2009) English in academia: Does nativeness matter?Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies, 20(2), 89–100.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jslp.21051.lev
Loading
  • Article Type: Editorial
Keyword(s): editorial ethics; nativeness; nonnative authors
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