“This one is going to need some extra attention. The author’s first language isn’t English.”
You ever get these instructions on an edit? Well, in “Pluralizing English? Variation in High-Stakes Academic Texts and Challenges of Copyediting,” that situation gets a little more nuanced.
The authors, Hartse and Kubota, consider themselves progressive when it comes to language variation, or use of nondominant Englishes, in published materials. The rubber meets the road, though, when Hartse edits the collection of essays Kubota has assembled. The essay authors were all nonnative English speakers, and the book called for “an end to the practice of native English-speaking … copyeditors ‘polishing’ [nonnative English-speaking] writers’ text for publication.” Kubota asked Hartse to “‘retain authors’ voices’ as much as possible.”
They discuss their experience and the conundrum of bridging progressive theory with the practice of publishing in “high-stakes academic texts.” They conclude that it is unrealistic and difficult, given the “expectations and constraints involved in academic publishing” — an environment where “sentences, texts, or authors” can be perceived as lacking in some way if there is a variation from standard English.
What does “maintaining the author’s voice” even mean if they don’t write in the “direct, linear pattern of Western academic writing”?
Here are the highlights for me:
New Ways to Think About English
Academics have recently been using three perspectives to address the legitimacy of language variation. The approaches advocate acceptance of multiple varieties of English, consider hybrid constructions using multiple linguistic and rhetorical approaches, and explore features of English common to nonnative English speakers.
If English is becoming the lingua franca of academic publishing, English in other places won’t be like American English (just as ours isn’t exactly like British English), right? Hartse and Kubota speculate that the application of these perspectives would “have a great impact on pedagogy, writing, and publishing practices” (including participation from marginalized or excluded voices).
Our Beloved, Imprecise, and Arbitrary Practice
Though we know editing is an art and not a science, sometimes markups reflect our own compulsions and preferences. At one point, Hartse says he couldn’t tell if one of the global edits he made improved the pieces “in terms of readability … or acceptability for publication” or if it just reflected his own preferences. The authors also discuss how academic journal writing guidelines hew to no universal standard and are often vague.
They even explore how the acceptability (or unacceptability) of a language variation is a social construct and how all of this leads to monolithic conceptions of good writing. Boldly, they call for research and practice that “look closely and empirically at ‘what constitutes a mistake (and … correctness) … in matters of spelling, punctuation, and syntax.’”
Preserving the Author’s Voice Is Tricky
One of our core tenets, right? Hartse and Kubota question whether copyediting robs the nonnative speaker of their voice or provides them with more professional capital. But what does “maintaining the author’s voice” even mean if they don’t write in the “direct, linear pattern of Western academic writing”? The article suggests giving more consideration to our authors’ and audience’s social and cultural contexts.
Editing Is Important! … and Underresearched
Folks want to see how these theories play out in practice and what’s being done now at the editing level. The authors note that editing practice is underexplored. To engage in dialogue, they propose that scholars bring their research to copyediting professionals and professional copyediting associations.
Turning Off Editing Autopilot
Hartse and Kubota cite writers who implore us to “embrace the complexity of English and facilitate the development of global literacy.” This pushes further than the current U.S. conscious language movement. To me, that line of thinking (“language evolves”) often seems to assume that it’s OK to add to standard English but not to recognize other Englishes, or that other Englishes are inferior to standard English.
What Can Editors Do?
First, the authors caution that there is enormous privilege in taking on their progressive stance, and advocates should be aware of that.
But copyeditors who want to explore this thread could consider creating text histories. The authors were inspired by this method — text history — which involves examining the correspondence about a document, the various versions of the document, and interviews with authors and involved publishing professionals to tell a full story of how a draft is developed. These types of studies could be presented at an editors or writers conference, with specific discussion around who benefits or is privileged in the process.
We can also scrutinize our own attitudes toward language variations. Asking “Why do I want this decision to be made?” with every edit may lead to “greater variety in expression, more equity for [nonnative English-speaking] writers, more tolerance for difference, and ultimately, published texts of a higher linguistic and ethical standard.”
It’s a lot to take in, but imagination is important for change. For “though [dominant] ways of acting, talking, feeling, or being may seem overwhelmingly obligatory or simply ‘the (only) way things are done,’ … There is always room … to resist and transform [them].*
* Laura M. Ahearn, Living Language: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology, 3rd ed. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2017), 285.
Leave a Reply