以第二語言撰寫研究論文之負擔：分析臺灣學者之經驗

Abstract

本計畫旨在以量化手法探究台灣的多語言學者以英文撰寫學術著作之負擔是否較以中文撰寫重。上述之負擔係依學者以第二語言撰寫時較以第一語言撰寫所增加之困難度、不滿意度及焦慮感而定(Hanauer & Englander, 2011)。本研究採用量化手法複製 Hanauer與Englander (2011)及採用Duszak與Lewkowicz（2008）先前研究製作的線上問卷。透過電子郵件邀請臺灣五所國立大學以及五所私立大學的1,822名人文及社會領域(HSS)和1,697名理、工及醫學領域(STEM + M)之教職員填寫此中英文線上問卷。236名受訪者中，75人在過去五年內以英文及中文向主要期刊提交了論文稿件，而得以回答在以英文撰寫研究著作時，相較於以中文撰寫之負擔。受訪者為助理教授、副教授、及教授，且在人社領域與理、工、醫學領域之分布相當平均。 本研究以成對樣本t檢定比較L1中文和L2英文出版所感知困難度、不滿意度和焦慮。其中量化的感知負擔L2較L1增加23.4％的困難度、9.4％的不滿意度以及22.7％的焦慮。此結果與Hanauer與Englander（2011）以西班牙語為母語之科學家之研究一致，顯示以英文作為科學著作為出版之第二語言具額外負擔，且可以為不同國家背景、不同語言背景之個人所感受。 依本研究之結果，使用英文撰寫學術文章的最常見原因是為了吸引特定讀者群，然而第二常見的原因是為了達到各科系之要求，即鼓勵學者在國際索引期刊發表論文之政策（Chou, 2014; Sheridan, 2017）。上述兩大領域(人文社會及理、工、醫學)之學者向國際索引期刊（IIJ）提交了大約57％的論著之調查結果即可佐證此論點。此外，低於5％的受訪者認為使用英文寫作的能力非發表論著的障礙，此意味著絕大多數受訪者認為以英文寫作為發表論著的障礙。 此項研究結果支持多語言學者在壓力下發表英文研究之經驗之質化及量化研究，特別是在國際索引期刊領域。具體而言，此顯示不同的語言和國家背景下，以第二語言出版科學論著者，其以英文寫作出版將增加負擔，而這種負擔係源自於語言之困難，而非學術寫作之挑戰(Hyland, 2016)，為所謂之隱藏的語言不正義。由於本研究之對象包含人文社會領域及理、工、醫學領域之學者，研究之結果更強調此「負擔」乃源自於語言而非專業領域之不同。此研究成果亦探討語言特權之議題，並影響全球學術出版和國家高等教育政策，特別是對教師的評鑑和升等。以臺灣來說，這個研究在提供一個理由質疑“SSCI 症候群”（Chou, 2014）和“引用文獻索引綜合症” （Sheridan, 2017）的同時，亦透過國家引用指數繼續支持中文期刊。

The purpose of this project was to determine if multilingual researchers in Taiwan perceive a greater burden when writing for scholarly publication in English compared to Chinese. Burden was operationalized as additional difficulty, dissatisfaction, and anxiety when writing research in their L2 as compared to their L1 (Hanauer & Englander, 2011). This study utilized a quantitative approach with an online questionnaire replicating Hanauer and Englander (2011) and adapting Duszak and Lewkowicz (2008). Email invitations to the English and Chinese online survey were sent to 1,822 humanities and social sciences (HSS) and 1,697 science, technology, engineering, and math, plus medicine (STEM+Med) faculty members at five national and five private universities around Taiwan. Of 236 respondents, 75 submitted manuscripts to major journals in both English and Chinese in the last five years, thereby qualifying to respond to questions eliciting perceived burden when writing research in English as compared to Chinese. They were assistant, assosciate, and full professors and split fairly evenly between HSS and STEM+Med disciplines. A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare perceived difficulty, dissatisfaction and anxiety in publishing in L1 Chinese and in L2 English. The perceived burden was quantified as generating 23.4% more difficulty, 9.4% more dissatisfaction, and 22.7% more anxiety. The results aligned with Hanauer and Englander’s (2011) study of Spanish-speaking scientists, showing that writing English, as an L2 for scientific publication purposes, presents an added burden and can be experienced by individuals from different language backgrounds in different national contexts. The most common reason for writing academic texts in English was to reach a specialized audience, but a close second was to meet department requirements, which ostensibly refers to institutional policies that encourage publishing in internationally indexed journals (IIJs) (Chou, 2014; Sheridan, 2017). This is supported by results showing both disciplinary groups have submitted about 57% of their manuscripts to IIJs. Less than 5% of respondents felt their ability to write in English was not a barrier to publishing their research, meaning the majority of respondents do view writing in English as a barrier. The results support qualitative and quantitative research into the experiences of multilingual scholars, who are under pressure to publish research in English, especially in IIJs. It shows that L2 science writers in different linguistic and national contexts can experience added burden when writing in English for publication and that this burden is derived from linguistic difficulties and not just the challenges of scholarly writing (Hyland, 2016), an argument that masks linguistic injustice (Hanauer & Englander, 2013). Because the current study included HSS and STEM+Medical researchers, it emphasizes that burden is tied to linguistic issues rather than disciplinary differences. The findings raise issues of linguistic privilege and have implications for global academic publishing and national higher education policies, especially governing faculty evaluation and promotion. For Taiwan, in particular, the study provides another reason to question “SSCI syndrome” (Chou, 2014) and the “citation index complex” (Sheridan, 2017), while continuing to support Chinese language journals through national citation indexes.