Standards of English

In a recent article, McKinley and Rose (2018) bring to light an issue of interest to both native and non-native English speakers pertaining to the accuracy of the language used in academic writing. In essence, they argue that the highly standardized language conventions required by academic journals serve to disadvantage L2 writers who come from a variety of backgrounds. Via a review of the submissions guidelines in 210 journals across 27 disciplines, they found the instructions to authors to be overly rigid. This inflexibility led them to urge journals to “become more open to diverse usage of English” (p. 9). Further, they problematized words such as “error” and “good” in reference to standards of academic English, which they claim “elevate native norms as the only acceptable standard” (p. 9). McKinley and Rose concluded by calling for a relaxation of the requirements laid out in journal submission guidelines, and in so doing, suggested adopting a more flexible and inclusive approach to the non-standard Englishes used by L2 scholars (p. 10). In raising this issue, McKinley and Rose reinvigorate an important discussion of considerable concern to a huge population of scholars who, in order to publish in leading journals, are forced to write in a foreign language. Their conclusions are also supported by a body of literature suggesting that L2 writers are at a distinct disadvantage when attempting to enter the world of academic publishing, which is dominated by the English language and requires them to conform to specific standards of English (Belcher, 2007; Canagarajah, 1996; Salager-Meyer, 2008; Seidlhofer, 2011).

In this rejoinder, however, I argue that a relaxation of the present language standards established in academic journals, as advocated by McKinley and Rose, fails to fully consider the importance of retaining a standard language for conveying scientific findings. Further, I critique their suggestion that advocates the avoidance of certain terms, such as “good” and “error-free” in reference to English usage because if acted upon, it could risk eroding the standards of language that the academic community has established and largely agreed upon. I begin this response by recalling a personal anecdote regarding certain spellings and the usage of the word “besides,” and then draw an analogy to the English spelling system to underscore the importance of establishing and retaining standards.