Publishing scientific articles is a crucial activity performed by a scientist to demonstrate inclusion as part of the community of scientists: a community constituted by journal editors, reviewers, authors and readers. A manuscript submitted to journals is first read by reviewers, and their decision to accept it creates membership in the community for the author with its attendant privileges of ingroup status. Rejection bars such membership. In this article we examine the language used by this powerful individual — the journal reviewer — to recognize another individual — the author — as being a member or not. Five reviewer reports of two different manuscripts submitted by non-native English-speaking authors are analyzed in this case study. Complementary discourse analytical approaches are used: group ideology, syntactic structure and personal pronouns. The analysis of the linguistic strategies used reveals three distinct positions that the reviewers adopt within this under-researched genre.
Ammon U (ed.) (2001) The Dominance of English as a Language of Science. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
2.
Belcher DD ( 2007) Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing16(1): 1-22.
3.
Benveniste É. ( 1971a) Problems in General Linguistics, trans. into English by Meek ME. Miami: University of Miami Press.
4.
Benveniste É (1971 b) Problemas de lingüística General I, trans. into Spanish by Almela J. México: SigloXXI.
5.
Canagarajah S. ( 1996) Nondiscursive requirements in academic publishing, material resources of periphery scholars and the politics of knowledge production. Written Communication13: 435-472.
6.
Curry MJ and Lillis T. ( 2004) Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: Negotiating interests, demands, and rewards. TESOL Quarterly38: 663-688.
7.
Enfield NJ and Stivers T (eds) (2007) Person Reference in Interaction . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Englander K.(2009) Transformation of the identities of non-native English-speaking scientists as a consequence of the social construction of revision. Journal of Language, Identity and Education8: 35-53.
9.
Flowerdew J. ( 2001) Attitudes of journal editors of non-native speaker contributions . TESOL Quarterly35: 121-150.
10.
Fortanet I. ( 2008) Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. Journal of English for Academic Purposes7: 27-37.
11.
Gee JP ( 2005) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.
12.
Gosden H. ( 1992) Research writing and NNSs: From the editors. Journal of Second Language Writing1: 123-139.
13.
Gosden H. ( 2003) ‘Why not give the full story?’: Functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers . Journal of English for Academic Purposes2: 87-101.
14.
Hamel RE ( 2007) The dominance of English in the international scientific periodical literature and the future of language use in science. AILA Review20: 53-71.
15.
Hanauer D. and Englander K. ( 2009) Quantifying the burden of writing a research article in English as a second language: Data from scientists in Mexico. American Association of Applied Linguistics, Denver, CO, March.
16.
Hinds J. ( 1977) Paragraph structure and pronominalization. Papers in Linguistics10: 77-100.
17.
Hirschauer S. ( 2010) Editorial judgments. A praxeology of ‘voting’ in peer review. Social Studies of Science40: 71-103.
18.
Kourilová M. ( 1996) Interactive functions of language in peer reviews of medical papers written by non-native users of English. UNESCO-ALSED LSP Newsletter19(41): 4-21.
19.
La Madeleine BL ( 2007) Lost in translation. Nature445: 454-455.
20.
Leech G. and Svartvik J. ( 2003) A Communicative Grammar of English, 3rd edn. New York: Pearson Longman.
21.
Lillis T. and Curry MJ ( 2010) Academic Writing in a Global Context. London: Routledge.
22.
McGinty S. ( 1999) Gatekeepers of Knowledge: Journal Editors in the Sciences and the Social Sciences. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
23.
Maxwell JA ( 1996) Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
24.
Michael I. ( 1970) English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Mühlhäusler P. and Harré R. ( 1990) Pronouns and People. The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
26.
Rivarola JL ( 1984) ¿Quién es nosotros? [Who is we?] ELUA. Estudios de Lingüística2: 201-206.
27.
Sacks H. and Schegloff EA ( 1979) Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. Reprinted in Stivers T., Enfield NJ and Levinson SC (2007) Person Reference in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 23-28.
28.
Salager-Meyer F. ( 2008) Scientific publishing in developing countries: Challenges for the future. Journal of English for Academic Purposes7: 121-132.
29.
Swales J. ( 1990) Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Swales J. ( 1996) Occluded genres in the academy. In: Ventola E and Mauranen A (eds) Academic Writing: Intercultural and Textual Issues . Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 45-58.
31.
Swales J. ( 2004) Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Uzuner S. ( 2008) Multilingual scholars’ participation in core/global academic communities: A literature review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes7: 250-262.
33.
Van Dijk TA ( 1995) Ideological discourse analysis. New Courant4: 135-161.
34.
Wales K. ( 1996) Personal Pronouns in Present-Day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yates S. and Hiles D.(2010) ‘You can’t’ but ‘I do’: Rules, ethics and the significance of shifts in pronominal forms for self-positioning in talk. Discourse Studies12(4): 535-551.
