| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Ann Thorac Surg 2007;84:363-364
© 2007 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons
Division of Thoracic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California
* Address correspondence to Dr Benfield, 11611 Terryhill Place, Los Angeles, CA 90049 (Email: j.benfield{at}verizon.net).
Cardiothoracic surgery and science are globalized. Only 8% of the world’s population speaks English, but it is the language of science. That was not the case when the earliest written communications about surgery, known as "The Edwin Smith Papyri," came from Egypt in approximately 17th century B.C. Successively, the language of science became Greek, Arabic, Latin, French, and German.
Approximately 60% of the original articles in The Annals of Thoracic Surgery and The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery are now from English as an International Language (EIL) authors, previously referred to as nonnative speakers. The EIL authors, editorial reviewers, and readers suffer from what I call the English Language Burden (ELB). The editor of The Annals of Thoracic Surgery has recognized this burden [1]. He has personally done language editing for some EIL manuscripts, and he has enlisted the help of peers to edit others.
What is the ELB? It is a struggle with the use of English to express ideas and subtleties and to represent a position in controversial matters. It is a weak appreciation of the conventions of discourse in English. The result of the ELB is suboptimum, sometimes poor, ability of EIL authors and speakers to say what they mean. It is not a matter of grammatical accuracy. Translators and computer programs cannot alleviate the ELB.
How did I become interested in the ELB? English is my best language, but I am fluent in German, which is my native tongue. More than 10 years ago, my offer to speak in Vienna in German was declined and English was requested. I recognized that it would have been considerably more work for me to speak and write in German, which I now use only on occasion. I developed empathy for EIL authors and subsequently undertook the work required to speak about the language of science when I was the honored guest of the European Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery [2]. I now believe that using English on a daily basis is a privilege that carries with it the responsibility of helping EIL authors [3].
The STS, The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, and Elsevier Science Publishers (Elsevier) began efforts to help EIL authors in 2001 and thereafter during each annual meeting until 2006. Our teaching method was based on EIL manuscripts, reviewers’ evaluations, and pertinent correspondence. We focused on areas of difficulty for EIL authors such as abstracts, introductions, discussions, and responding to the editor. Each year we required written evaluations that guided our choice of the following year’s curriculum. Our students regularly asked for more sessions of similar type. In preparing for the workshops, the language professional and I independently edited problematic items, thus allowing us to compare the original EIL version with each of ours.
We have addressed various specialties, including the Japan Surgical Society and the American College of Surgeons. In 2005 and 2006, Elsevier invited us to address Japan’s most promising young gastroenterologists. The content of the teaching tasks we created always came from the specialty we were addressing. My editing and that of the language professional always supplemented and complemented each other. Last July at the International Symposium on English for Medical Purposes in Beijing, I was asked to address the topic of how language professionals and peer editors work together, and I was told that my remarks were well received.
I have enjoyed ongoing collaboration with applied linguists, first with Kathryn M. Howard at UCLA [2], and then with Christine B. Feak, a master teacher of English at the University of Michigan [3, 4]. I have appreciated the support of Feak’s mentor, Professor John Swales, who is an acclaimed leader among language professionals, and I have worked closely with Professor J. Patrick Barron who heads Tokyo Medical University’s International Communications Center. We have learned from each other, and each of us is convinced that peers and language professionals working together are more effective as editors for EIL authors than either alone. Some of the evidence to support this viewpoint has been published [4].
The concept that professionals with skills that complement one another who are working together deliver a better product than either type of professional alone is neither original nor new. Figure 1 shows an example of such collaboration in painting.
|
My projection is that English will be the language of science for the foreseeable future. My hope is that publishers, industry, government, and professional organizations will support steps to enhance the quality of the EIL authors’ communications. I further hope that editors and funding sources will recognize the superiority of the EIL manuscript editing by language professionals and peers—a contention for which we have abundant evidence.
What do I propose? I suggest the development of editing teams consisting of expert language professionals plus peers, both to be paid for their time and knowledge. In cardiothoracic surgery, the peers may be recently retired surgeons who know the subject matter, who have themselves published original articles, and who have an interest in participating. Electronic communication, perhaps through the Internet, could bring EIL authors, language professionals, and English proficient peers together efficiently. For the beginning, I would restrict such services to EIL authors of papers that have received requests for revision after editorial peer review. The authors and their institutions would pay for such help, as many of them do now. I believe ultimate budget neutrality could be achieved, but start-up funding would be required, and modest long-term budget supplementation might be needed. Such a program should be implemented through organizations such as The STS, Teachers of English for Speakers of Other Languages, and groups that focus on English for specific purposes. Toward the goal of excellence in scientific reporting, let those of us who have the privilege of using English on a daily basis accept the responsibility to develop and implement programs and methods to help our EIL colleagues express themselves fully and well in our language.
 |
Footnotes |
|---|
 Top Footnotes References |
|---|
|
References |
|---|
|
TopFootnotesReferences |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Castillo English as an International Language: Web-Based Help AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., May 1, 2009; 30(5): 857 - 858. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ANN THORAC SURG | ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN | EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG |
| J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG | ICVTS | ALL CTSNet JOURNALS |
