ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��

Scholars whose mother tongue is not English face more hurdles in academia than native English speakers, Uwe Peters and his colleagues find in a new international survey of philosophers. Across proficiency levels, non-native English speakers needed considerably longer to read and prepare talks in English, faced more English manuscript rejections, and felt more anxious about contributing to workshops in English. “These challenges likely extend to many other humanities fields,” Peters says. 

Language disadvantage across many English-use domains

Peters and his team conducted the survey in seven languages, among 1,615 philosophers from 68 countries, including the Netherlands, the United States, the United Kingdom, China, and Japan. Overall, non-native English-speaking respondents, who were mostly highly English proficient, needed about 30 per cent more time to read an English-language article compared to native speakers. Those with low and intermediate English skills often took twice as long. They also required almost nearly double the time when preparing an English talk. 

If a native English speaker takes two hours to read a paper, a non-native speaker may need two and a half to four hours.

“If a native English speaker takes two hours to read a paper, for example, a non-native speaker may need two and a half to four hours,” Peters specifies. “Preparing a presentation may take more than fifteen hours instead of eight. And that is just time – not the extra mental energy or costs.” 

“Non-native English speakers also face a lot more rejection of their English-language writings,” says Peters. The survey shows that even the most fluent non-native English-speaking philosopher had on average 27 per cent fewer publications in English than their native speaker counterparts.

English language anxiety limits academic participation

The disadvantage extends beyond time and publication output, Peters says. “Also worrying is that non-native English speakers are about ten times more likely to avoid asking questions at academic events, and nine times more likely to skip such events altogether – due to English-related anxiety.”

“Even those who very frequently use English may pay a cost,” Peters points out. Almost 90 per cent of the non-native English-speaking respondents reported that increased use and exposure to English has reduced their ability to discuss philosophy in their first language. This phenomenon is known as native language attrition.

The more distant a speaker’s mother tongue is from English, the harder it is for them.

Larger burdens for some languages

The study’s international scope reveals that some non-native English scholars face even larger challenges than others. “The more distant a speaker’s mother tongue is from English, the harder it is for them,” Peters explains. “For Dutch-speaking philosophers, whose language is relatively close to English, publication rates dropped by about 14 per cent compared to native English speakers. But for Chinese speakers, whose language is much more distant from English, the drop was approximately 47 per cent.”

“It is also worth noting that the number of respondents with lower English proficiency was much smaller,” Peters adds. “So, our results are skewed toward highly proficient non-native English speakers. The actual disadvantages for the wider community may be even greater.”

Why language inequality matters for philosophy and the humanities

According to Peters, the findings raise concerns about the quality and inclusivity of academic discourse. “When the ideas of non-native English speakers are heard less often, what counts as ‘good’ philosophy may be biased in favour of native English speakers’ perspectives.”

“The same goes for the humanities in general. Just as in philosophy, in fields such as literary studies, history, or cultural theory, the ability to convey fine shades of meaning is not just a bonus, but perhaps core of the scholarly work. Humanities scholars might even be more affected than their colleagues in the sciences, as they cannot rely on equations or universal symbolic systems. The dominance of English influences whose thoughts get published, discussed, and ultimately make it into the collective record of the field.”

If others hold back on input, or don’t get the chance to contribute, the ‘checks and balances’ mechanism may stop working properly.

Peters emphasises that the lack of inclusivity is problematic because in academia, the exchange of ideas and social criticism is vital. “It helps us avoid mistakes in our reasoning and make research progress. Yet, if others hold back on input, or don’t get the chance to contribute, this ‘checks and balances’ mechanism may stop working properly.”

Recommendations for more inclusive humanities

The research team recommends concrete steps to create a more level playing field. ľ�ϸ���Ӱ�� teachers, conference organisers, journal editors, and reviewers should acknowledge that non-native English-speaking scholars require more time and support to contribute equally. They also stress the importance of focussing on substance over style and to publish peer review reports alongside papers to increase the accountability for language-focused criticisms.

In addition, institutions could provide non-native English speakers with access to professional proofreading and AI writing tools. “Changes like these are not just about fairness,” Peters concludes. “They would make philosophy, and the humanities in general, more inclusive. This will ultimately strengthen our collective knowledge production.”