Language experts have hit out at a professor¡¯s ¡°unwarranted¡± and ¡°premature¡± dismissal of linguistic bias against academics who speak English as a second language.

Ken Hyland, professor of applied linguistics at the University of Hong Kong, ruffled feathers in academia in March when he branded the idea of discrimination against non-native English speakers by publishers as a ¡°myth¡± that was used by some academics to explain why their substandard research was not published in top-ranked journals.

There was ¡°little evidence¡± to support the ¡°pervasive¡± notion that many papers were rejected solely on account of their authors¡¯ less-than-perfect English, said Professor Hyland in a paper published in the Journal of Second Language Writing.

But five leading linguistics scholars have taken issue with Professor Hyland¡¯s dismissal of the contention that academic publishing is rigged in favour of those with English as a first language.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Writing in the same journal, linguists from the universities of Cologne, Oxford, New York Abu Dhabi, Kansas, Indiana and Korea state that Professor Hyland¡¯s failure to find any proof of linguistic bias did not mean that it did not exist.

Nor did the fact that numerous non-native English speakers are accepted for publication each year mean that concerns over bias were overblown, the authors add.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Such a ¡°straw man¡± argument is ¡°comparable to the argument that racism is not a concern in [the] United States...because the country has a black president¡±, they add.

"That argument is fallacious because one or several examples of success do not invalidate a broad pattern of disadvantage,¡± they say.

Professor Hyland¡¯s ¡°overly optimistic¡± assertion that decisions to accept or reject papers are taken by journals mainly on the basis of content rather than language also ignored a wealth of evidence related to unconscious biases held by reviewers, claims the article, titled ¡°Is linguistic justice a myth? A response to Hyland (2016)¡±.

¡°Reviewers and editors of academic article submissions¡­may be unable to acknowledge or even recognise [their] bias,¡± it explains.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

¡°Outside of an academic context, non-native-accented speech has been shown to be judged as less credible-sounding than native-accented speech¡­it is not unreasonable to expect this unconscious bias to extend to written academic text as well,¡± it adds.

Responding to the critique, Professor Hyland says that he realised he was ¡°treading on sacred ground¡± when he branded linguistic bias a ¡°myth¡±, but felt that it was ¡°important to at least initiate a debate on something that has largely been unquestioned¡±.

Those who pushed claims of linguistic injustice, which had deterred some academics from submitting papers and unfairly damned scrupulously fair editors, had a duty to ¡°substantiate them with hard evidence¡±, he adds, saying that it was ¡°not for debunkers to find counterevidence¡±.

The linguists¡¯ paper ¡°simply repeats a lot of the well-rehearsed arguments we have seen before, supported by untested assumptions and instinctive reflex rather than data¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

¡°As a result, their paper fails to take the debate forward and ultimately, after some 4,000 words, ends up¡­with a call for more research¡±.

jack.grove@tesglobal.com