As the international publishing scene is increasingly dominated by L2 writers of English, what is considered to be “good” and “acceptable” English calls for further research.
This paper focuses on the use of written English as L2 in history and computer science. Our research question is: In what ways do researchers describe the English used for research writing in their field? The data were collected via semi-structured interviews with 27 researchers working in Finland and Sweden. In order to shed light on interviewee experiences and perceptions regarding the use of, and requirements for, English in their fields, the data were analysed based on the positions (author, reader/reviewer, and proofreader) from which the interviewees talked.
Based on the analysis, we identified a discrepancy between the ideals and realities of research writing in English, particularly in history. The historians described an ideal text as “beautiful” and “elegantly” written, and often associated such writing with L1 use. However, this elegance could also be considered distracting, which suggests that “good” writing in the sense of being understandable may be different from “good” writing in the sense of being elegant. The computer scientists’ descriptions of both the ideals and realities of research writing indicate a strive towards “clarity” and “correctness”. Despite the difficulty in defining what is “acceptable” or “unacceptable” on the lexico-grammatical level, the criterion of clarity is applicable to both history and computer science.
In all, our analysis sheds light on the possible directions that writing for publication in English in the two fields may be taking in terms of language requirements. Instead of moving away from standard to increased diversity in the use of written English (cf. Canagarajah’s 2013 codemeshing proposal), our analysis suggests that there is a pull towards some form of standard language use. This “standard” is likely to be based on the principles of understandability and clarity, but it is also negotiated during the research paper writing, reviewing and proofreading process, and may thus develop in different directions in different disciplines.
Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. London: Routledge.
