二、與會心得

Dana Ferris, Masumi Narita, Alister Cumming, Diane Schallert, Min Hui-Tzu, Deborah Crusan, John Bitchener.等人。筆者也碰到了一些台灣去的學者教授，如: Min Hui-Yzu, Liu, Pei-Hsun, Tseng, Yueh-Hung, Chang, Yea-Huey 等等。

本次會議的主題是 Graduate study in second language writing. 當考慮第二外語寫作的未來發展，不得不朔及到研究所的寫作教育，研究生如何習得、經歷做研究的過程，

如何從學徒成為學者。本次會議邀請的主講者是分別以老師與學生的不同角度，現身說法，

來陳述個人的經歷與反思，以從過去的歷史來窺看未來的可能性。與會心得分享如下。

Snapshots of SSLW

筆者參加了多場論文發表會，在此礙於篇幅，僅記錄幾場印象深刻的論述。

Measuring Vocabulary Size in Second Language Writing—Melanie Gonzalez Lexicon size 是 L2 writers 在寫作時與 L1 writers 最望塵莫及之處，它也是文章品質好壞的關鍵。Lexical richness 並非字彙量多寡，而是個人能掌控文字使用於不同情境並可成熟技巧的運用能力。Gonzalez 介紹了三種字彙檢定測試工具: The productive vocabulary levels test, The lexical frequency profile, Coh Metrix. Gonzale 指出產出字彙 (productive vocabulary)通常比接收字彙(receptive vocabulary) 量少，但是字彙庫越大的學習者，可以產出寫作字彙的量相對增加。此外，在研究時，計算字彙的方式很具爭議性，

同家族的字根變化是否該被視為新字計算，也造成研究結果的歧異。

Computer-mediated peer feedback in EFL Writing—Hatime Ciftci & Zeynep Kocoglu

人。控制組的學生以面對面方式同儕互評，實驗組的學生在電腦教室上寫作課，並使用 blog 同儕互評。透過 ANOVA 分析發現，兩組的學生在寫作上都有進步，但是實驗組的學生的修定稿品質更佳。

Academic Literacy and L2 Writing for Scholarly Publication June Yichun Liu, National Chengchi University, Taiwan

筆者個人的報告是在九月六號的下午。與會者目測約 30 人左右。結束報告後，筆者認真的回答了與會者的提問，席間討論愉快，氣氛輕鬆。大多數的人顧慮若期刊不再以標準英語把關，期刊文章品質勢必受影響。筆者提出的看法是，過去傳統認為文章寫作是全由作者負起讓讀者讀懂的責任 (writer＇s responsibility)，而新的觀點是，讀者與作者雙方都需為文章詮釋後的意義負責任 (writer-reader responsibility)，這樣的觀點目前頗新穎，但是要落實在學術發表的情境中，尚有一段距離，不過，席間有某期刊編輯說明，他們的審稿過程會將投稿人的英語列為非主要考量，而是以文章內容的深度為主，這樣的趨勢，

勢必改變未來的學術社群。

Me, presenting and participating in presentation sessions

本發表研究已經根據投稿須要做出修改，並且已經被接受。下面的發表論文標題與內容，因此與會議的標題與內容不盡相似。

接受信函:

National Cheng-Chi University Department of Education

April 2, 2012

To Whom It May Concern,

I am the editor for the volume, SSCI Syndrome. I am writing to prove the blind review process for Yichun Liu’s chapter, "Problems, Strategies, and Impart of SSCI Publication in English. Perceptions and Negotiations of Taiwanese Researchers"

Dr. Liu's manuscript first went through the initial review process, which was evaluated by the editor based on its originality and topic relevance. Among the submitted manuscripts, Dr. Liu's chapter was selected and sent out anonymously for peer review. The referee was asked to evaluate the manuscript in various aspects including, but not limited to, the following: if the topic is worthy of investigation, if the methodology is sound, if the rationale is clearly stated, if the information presented is new, if the results are clearly presented, and if the linguistic usage is appropriate.

Through the standard review process, Dr. Liu's chapter was accepted for publication as part of the volume which will be published by Sense Publisher in 2012. It was a pleasure to work with Dr. Liu, and I am thankful for Dr. Liu's contribution to the discussion of SSCI impact on academia in Taiwan.

Should you have any question about the blind review process, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Chuing Prudence Chou

Professor, Department of Education National Chengchi University Taiwan E-mail: [email protected]

Problems, Strategies, and Impact of SSCI Publication in English:

Perceptions and Negotiations of Taiwanese Researchers

Introduction

In the era of hyper information exchange and knowledge development, the government of Taiwan has

promulgated various policies to encourage internationalization of scholarship in order to boost Taiwan’s

intellectual industry and international visibility. Scholarly publication in international journals, thus, has been

inevitably emphasized in Taiwan and has become one of the crucial parameters to evaluate researchers’

scholarship. Because of the overabundant information sources and diverse international journals of various

levels of quality, journals listed in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) have emerged as the target venues

for knowledge exchange and professional discussion because the journals indexed in the SSCI database are

identified as having the most frequently cited articles.

Thomson Reuters, the company that runs the SSCI database, provides selective data of the world’s 2,474

leading journals across 50 social science disciplines. The majority of these journals are issued in the western

countries, such as the United States and United Kingdom. Only 2% of indexed scientific publications come

from developing countries (Salager-Meyer, 2008).Indisputably, the major language used for publications in

these SSCI journals is English. In Taiwan, papers published in the SSCI journals usually are deemed as

canonical scholarship in the respective fields and represent an honorable achievement for the researchers who

publish them. Thus, government institutions and most of the national universities in Taiwan have adopted

publication in SSCI journals as one of the core indicators to appraise a researcher’s performance determining

as well as resource allocation. The local academic ecology of Taiwan has been dramatically impacted by these

SSCI-related practices in various ways, and “SSCI” has been used to describe anything generally related to

professional advancement in Taiwan academic life. Likewise, in this article, “SSCI” will be adopted as a

general term rather than simply being the abbreviation for the name of the index. This article will first explore

the SSCI publication difficulties that Taiwanese researchers usually encounter, then discuss Taiwanese

researchers’ negotiation strategies, and finally analyze the impact of SSCI on researchers and the academic

culture in Taiwan.

Literature Review

English has been the lingua franca or a major language used by scholars in most of the SSCI journals to

construct and exchange knowledge among nations. English academic writing for publication in SSCI journals

can be a formidable undertaking (Bartholomae, 1985). Not only can the academic discourse and the

conventions of scholarly publication be daunting challenges to the NES (native English speaking) researchers,

but needless to say, SSCI publication mires the off-networked NNES (non-native English speaking) and the

EIL (English as an international language) scholars in serious disadvantage from participating in the

international academic community. These highly demanding genres and linguistic requirements of publication

in SSCI journals, on the one hand, have served as the gatekeeper to maintain the quality and control the

content of the publications; however, on the other hand, they have raised serious concerns among many

researchers because these culturally and linguistically exclusionary requirements may encourage knowledge

exclusion (Canagarajah, 1996) and inequality of knowledge creation (Wen and Gao, 2007), linguistic

impoverishment (Mauranen, 1993), ideological imposition (Canagarajah, 1993; Pennycook, 1994; Phillipson,

A number of researchers have argued that the worldwide Anglicization of scholarly publication has

disadvantaged NNES and EIL scholars in the participation of the mainstream academic community (Braine,

2005; Canagarajah, 1996, 2003; Curry & Lillis, 2004; Gibbs, 1995; St. John, 1987; Swales, 1987, 1990).

Besides, many studies also have reported that the majority of NNES scholars perceived themselves as

off-networked and disadvantageous due to lack of English proficiency (Cho, 2004; Curry & Lillis, 2004;

Flowerdew, 1999a; Huang, 2010; Tardy, 2004).

With the increasing pressure to be recognized in quantifiable terms, a great number of NNES and EIL

scholars strive to publish in the SSCI journals. The disparities of English writing for scholarly publication

have drawn extensive attention. It is reported that NNES writers generally experience difficulties in grammar,

adopting citations, interpreting references, developing arguments, organizing information, constructing

authorial voice, showing readership awareness, using hedges, and making academically appropriate claims

(Dudley-Evans, 1994; Johns, 1993; Mauranen, 1993; St. John, 1987; Swales, 1990).

In parallel with these studies, Flowerdew (1999) investigated the problems for scholarly publication

among Cantonese scholars in Hong Kong. By means of in-depth interviews, he studied 26 scholars’

perception of their publication difficulties. He found that NNES scholars perceived themselves to have less

facility of expression, take longer to write, have a less rich vocabulary, be less capable in making claims for

their research with the appropriate amount of force, be better suited to writing quantitative articles, be

interfered by their L1 with their L2 composition process, be best advised to write in a simple style, and have

the most difficulties in writing introduction and discussion parts of research articles. Furthermore, the

editing services, which only resolved surface errors rather than substance, could be helpful.

Although writing in English for scholarly publication seems to be an obvious challenge for international

scholars, some researchers have incongruent findings. Belcher (2007), the editor of English for Specific

Purposes (ESPj), analyzed submissions to the journal from 1998 to 2001 written by EIL and EL (English

language) researchers and the 29 reviews written by both EL and EIL reviewers. Nine text features emerged

based on her analysis of reviewers’ comments: audience, topic, purpose, literature review, methods, results,

discussion, pedagogical implications, and language use. Belcher found that “topic” received positive

comments from the majority of reviews (72%), and “language use” received negative comments among 90%

of the reviews. Belcher also found that the off-networked EL researchers suffered similar disadvantages as the

off-networked EIL researchers, such as unfamiliarity with journal expectations in both research design and

presentation. Belcher interpreted the 75% high rate of publication from Hong Kong among the total

China-origin papers as its “substantial financial support for research” (p.17). Not surprisingly, Belcher (2007)

suggested that research writing expertise and availability of resources might be more salient factors than

language issues. Nevertheless, Belcher’s suggestion is contradictory to what she had observed in that 83% of

the papers originating in the US were eventually accepted, and only 24% of the China-origin (among the total

75% were from Hong Kong) submissions were accepted for publication (p.17). In fact, her finding that the

majority of the accepted papers originated from the US and Hong Kong has already proved language as one of

the crucial factors determining the success of scholarly publication. In addition, it is questionable to

distinguish “research writing expertise” from language issues; it is also problematic to claim that language is

less salient in scholarly publication simply because both EL and EIL researchers received similar language

Kong as an EIL milieu (Flowerdew, 1999; Li, 1999), as it is a highly internationalized city where English is

commonly used in governmental organizations and schools.

Flowerdew (2001) conducted a qualitative research study to explore the publishing issue from the

perspective of journal editors. He interviewed 11 international journal editors and found that many journal

editors have recognized language as a major issue in academic publication. Most of them agreed that the EIL

researchers usually made surface errors in their submissions. Most of the editors expressed their sympathy for

EIL researchers and would like to help them if the research was worthwhile. However, in line with Belcher

(2007), the most significant problem indicated by these editors about international scholars’ submissions was

not language use but “parochialism” or failure to show the relevance of the study to the international

community.

The “language” issues discussed by Flowerdew (1999) and Belcher (2007) as well as the “parochialism”

suggested by Flowerdew (2001) can be problematized from the perspective of academic literacy. Academic

literacy refers to not merely linguistic knowledge but also “knowledge of the textual, social and cultural

features of academic written discourse as well as knowledge of English as used by their academic disciplines”

(Ferenz, 2005, p. 340). According to Barton and Hamilton (1998), academic literacy is a social act, which can

be acquired through discourse community practices and interactions between members of the community.

Within the academic community, academic literacy can be cultivated through the practice process of

knowledge creation and construction. Participating in the academic community practice enables the

participants to perceive the meta-cognitive knowledge of the community, the intricate trends of the past and

future, and the relationships among the members. Thus, community practices and academic literacy afford the

readership, define issues, negotiate arguments, theorize findings, and lead discussions. Based on Barton and

Hamilton’s (1998) theory of literacy, language issues of advanced academic writing can be the abstract

difficulties at the higher level beyond the surface linguistic usage for NNES and EIL writers. However, with

relatively less chance of joining this central academic community due to language barriers, most of the NNES

and EIL researchers suffer the process of developing academic literacy. That in turn creates a vicious circle

hindering NNES/EIL researchers’ legitimate participation of the target community.

From the perspective of academic literacy that scholarly writing involves higher-level language issues,

the findings that no manuscript was rejected only because of language usage (Flowerdew, 2001; Hewings,

2002), and if the research idea of a manuscript is worthwhile, that the editors could help out with the language

problems (Flowerdew, 2001) have overlooked the complexity of language in advanced academic literacy.

Canagarajah (1996) pointed out that the inequities faced by NNES/EIL writers in the academic

publishing industry are not only discursive but also nondiscursive. According to the theory of contrastive

rhetoric (Kaplan, 1966), NNES/EIL writers’ rhetorical knowledge is deeply engrained in their indigenous

culture and communicative conventions. Their written texts manifest the discursive structures and thought

patterns that are different from the Anglo-American expectations. Besides, the nondiscursive publishing

practices, such as “the format of the copy text, bibliographical and documentation conventions, the particular

weight and quality of the paper… the procedures for submitting revisions and proofs, and the nature of

interaction between authors and editorial boards” (Canagarajah, 1996, p.436) also have important implications

for scholarly publication, which can become the barriers to exclude the participation of the off-networked

researchers. That is, the issues of EIL scholars’ “language use” reported by Belcher (2007) may be caused by

Kong scholars’ self-perception of being academically incompetent may result from the asymmetrical relations

of politico-economic power behind the Western publishing industry. The “Parochialism” indicated by the

editors interviewed by Flowerdew (2001) can be what Canagarajah (1996) called the “periphery perspectives”

which can provide alternative cultural perspectives and vibrant contributions to the “stable” and

“conservative” “centre” (p.465). The cross-reviewed literatures have revealed the gaps between not only the

NNES/EIL scholars and journal editors, the peripheral and the center but also theory and practice. Most of the

NNES/EIL scholars consider English as their major challenge for scholarly publication; however, most of the

journal editors believe that content quality, such as research writing expertise and meta-cognitive knowledge

about the academic community including journal expectation or parochialism is more crucial than accuracy

issues (Hamp-Lyons, 2009). In other words, those journal editors seemed to believe that what NNES/EIL

scholars suffer is only linguistic problems; moreover, content quality, research writing expertise and

meta-cognitive knowledge about community seemed to be viewed as independent from language and

academic literacy. Though theories of academic literacy, intercultural communication and contrastive rhetoric

have challenged the monolith of the publication gate of the center academic community, contours of the

evolving publication practice for multilingual scholars’ knowledge construction are still unclear. Most of the

editors within the position of gatekeepers, despite feeling sympathetic to NNES/EIL scholars or helping

correct lexicogrammatical errors, have limitation to equalize knowledge creation, distribution and access

(Wen and Gao, 2007; Nunn, 2009; Salager-Meyer, 2008). To shorten the gaps, more discussions and research

about academic publication of L2 scholars are necessary.

Asian NNES/EIL writers’ publication issues were conducted in Hong Kong (Braine, 2005; Cheung,2010;

Flowerdew, 1999 a; Flowerdew,1999 b; Flowerdew, 2000; Flowerdew, 2001; Li and Flowerdew, 2009) and

China (Cargill and O'Connor,2006;Cargill, O'Connor, and Li, 2012; Flowerdew and Li, 2009; Li, 2002; Liu,

2001; Liu, 2004; Shi, Wang and Xu, 2005). Taiwan is a unique case to the research of writing for scholarly

publication. Unlike Hong Kong, a postcolonial context where people, especially researchers, have

considerable English exposures, the majority of the Taiwanese researchers are speakers of English as a

foreign language. Besides, Taiwan’s fairly even distribution of economic and academic resources is distinct

from China where resources are not available evenly, and most “institutions of higher learning lack the

financial resources” (Wen and Gao, 2007, p.224).For researchers who would like to minimize the

non-discursive variables, such as, availability of resources, but focus on language issues, Taiwan can offer a

more congruent research context.

Echoing Flowerdew’s (1999) suggestion that under the macro picture of English hegemony in scholarly

publication, individual researcher’s publication problems should be explored at the micro level, in this study, I

在文檔中從學術寫作素養與知識創新談台灣學者如何解決學術發表的困境 (頁 47-81)