Band 2024, Heft 289-290 - Special Issue: The Politics of Academic Reading: 50th Anniversary Issue of IJSL; Issue Editor: Alexandre Duchêne

Resumen En un mundo con evidentes asimetrías, ¿cómo hacemos las investigadoras y los investigadores del Sur Global con el poco financiamiento con el que contamos para acceder a la bibliografía mainstream ? ¿Con qué recursos producimos conocimiento? ¿Cómo difundimos nuestras producciones? ¿Hay otras opciones de publicación de “impacto”? A partir de una reflexión crítica sobre las políticas de escritura y lectura académicas en general, y sobre la sobreproducción de textos científicos en particular, reviso las estrategias a las que acudimos cuando queremos intervenir en la discusión a escala mundial. Luego, abogo por el aumento de prácticas editoriales de acceso abierto. En esa dirección, ubico al Anuario de Glotopolítica y expongo las decisiones de política editorial que adoptó como una apuesta de publicación alternativa, que busca contestar las lógicas dominantes de la indexación que caracterizan el sistema académico actual, controlado por ciertas dinámicas de evaluación, cierta uniformización discursiva y la hegemonía del inglés.

In this commentary, I reflect on the shortcomings in representing linguistic knowledge in academic publishing. While Klein’s 1989 article Schreiben oder Lesen, aber nicht beides, oder: Vorschlag zur Wiedereinführung der Keilschrift mittels Hammer und Meißel calls attention to the overproduction of scholarly knowledge in the context of publish or perish ideologies, I invite us to consider how we distribute knowledge within the spaces of academic publishing with regard to global north and global south scholars and contexts. At present, scholarship about language is largely produced by scholars in WEIRD contexts, that is, western, educated, industrial, rich, democratic societies. This leads to limited outcomes in terms of what we can find out about the nature of language by virtue of excluding a majority of the world’s populations and contexts. As we go about questioning the purpose of academic publishing, we also need to consider how to better represent our findings in light of the narrowness of what we have researched.

In this essay we reflect upon Wolfgang Klein’s 1989 paper Schreiben oder Lesen, aber nicht beides, oder: Vorschlag zur Wiedereinführung der Keilschrift mittels Hammer und Meißel ( Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 74. 116–119) about the exponential development of knowledge and the imbalance between the production and reception of this. Whilst appreciating the sentiment, we argue against what seems to be his underestimation of the contribution of humanities. Klein suggests those in our field are content because unlike natural scientists, we “do not harm”: We contend we do much more – supporting and enhancing the lives of humankind. When addressing the question of “why do we do what we do?”, we answer by saying humanities and specifically applied linguistic researchers make a difference . We strive to understand the linguistic landscape, and to heighten awareness and understanding about culture, language, language learning and communication. Those working in the field advocate for and support those who are marginalised and lack agency, giving voice to those who are often silenced.

摘要 本文基于中国过去一百年的经验，简要探讨了文字简化对于增进学术产出和技术进步的积极推动作用。在中国古代，繁体字和文言文将学术界生产的大量知识长期限制在很小比例的人口中，导致了后来严重的思想僵化、科技停滞和文化衰败。自20世纪以来，中国开展的汉字简化和普通话推广活动极大提升了人口教育水平，促进了科技发展、经济腾飞和文化兴盛。中国的经验显示，扩大知识生产人群、鼓励活跃知识生产对于文化发展存续，以及推进人工智能的发展具有高度重要性。

This is a response to Wolfgang Klein (1989). Schreiben oder Lesen, aber nicht beides, oder: Vorschlag zur Wiedereinführung der Keilschrift mittels Hammer und Meißel , for the 50th Anniversary issue of IJSL. It focuses on the imbalance in access to academic publishing for scholars from the global south, and for scholars working in and on languages other than English.

This essay explores the relationship between reading and citing and how journal editors can be involved in encouraging more of both practices in order to address issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. To explain how adherence to a citational politics will elevate scholarship and ameliorate existing inequalities in the academy, this essay reframes “to read is to cite” as a moral proposition that posits that reading with a purpose is good simply because it is based on a pre-determined intention to cite and include diverse works in conversation with one’s own now and in the indefinite future. Framed in this way, the proposition fosters an ongoing relationship with a scholarly work through readership and citation. It becomes a living contract to read and cite not once but frequently, and not endorse one type of diversity but the many types that one encounters over one’s entire career. Hence, this essay is less preoccupied with the goal of standardizing and codifying citational practices than with encouraging authors to engage with citational politics in the context of their own disciplines. Specific editorial strategies are explored – such as more thematic issues and greater publicizing on social media and other digital platforms. These strategies emphasize how editors must increase their curatorial role in the presentation of journal content to showcase the merits of an article for advancing a less-well known theme or topic, meeting DEI goals, and advancing knowledge in the field.

The 50 years of the devotion of sociolinguistics under the International Journal of the Sociology of Language have brought us remarkable insights into language in relation to society. For the next half century, for the discipline to engage more effectively with the radically and fast changing human society, i. e. in answer to the provocative questions raised by Wolfgang Klein in Schreiben oder Lesen, aber nicht beides, oder: Vorschlag zur Wiedereinführung der Keilschrift mittels Hammer und Meißel, (1989. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 74. 116–119 [repr. in this issue]) it may do well to take a culturalist turn, or its seminal sociocultural return, by studying language and society, or rather, language-in-society, as a system of culturally diversified and competing discourses with a view to neutralizing the human cultural chasm on the one hand and to enhancing human cultural harmony and prosperity on the other hand.

Wolfgang Klein’s paper Writing or reading, but not both, or: a proposal reintroduce cuneiform writing using the hammer and chisel is a great example of ex absurdo reasoning to introduce very serious questions about the exponential increase in the quantity of publications in our field and the impossibility of keeping up with everything. The proposed solutions to limit output and enhance its quality are humourous and absurd as they are inoperable. Wolfgang Klein adopts the position of Don Quixote charging windmills in Cervante’s El ingenioso hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha published in the early seventeenth century. I argue that researchers are free to read and write as much as they want about any topic that fascinates them. Doing so judiciously will allow them to thrive.

In this article we propose a more radical solution to the problem identified by Wolfgang Klein 35 years ago of an increasing disparity between writing and reading.

Using Klein’s observation of almost 35 years ago of the disturbed balance between production and reception of academic knowledge as a starting point, we reflect on some of the tensions related to current reading practices in academic publishing. Specifically, we discuss two tensions that we encounter and try to resolve in our role as editors: 1) the tension between standardization and creativity, and 2) the tension between monologue and dialogue. Throughout, we also discuss a third more general tension, namely the gap between academic values of knowledge production embedded in the collegial work for scientific publications, and the profit driven publishing industry.

Klein’s (Klein, Wolfgang. 1989. Schreiben oder Lesen, aber nicht beides, oder: Vorschlag zur Wiedereinführung der Keilschrift mittels Hammer und Meißel. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 74. 116–119) concerns about and suggestions for dealing with the massive growth in research publishing in light of the human limits on the speed at which such quantities of information are amusing, thoughtful, and worth considering. However, whatever worry and frustration one might feel about the seemingly insurmountable amount of assembled data, information, and analyses – flowing without end – we must accept that it is a messy but essential part of scientific progress.

This article investigates both universal and relative aspects of sociolinguistic academic writing and reading. It engages with Wolfgang Klein’s (1989. Schreiben oder Lesen, aber nicht beides, oder: Vorschlag zur Wiedereinführung der Keilschrift mittels Hammer und Meißel. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 74. 116–119) article. Klein starts from an implicit assumption that writing and reading are individual activities and suggests that (individual) writers must decrease their production to enable their (individual) readers to read it. I argue that the contemporary world transformed reading and writing from individual to institutional activities. This means that the importance and feasibility of contemporary academic research are not linked to the individualistic reading but rather to the institutional reading that transforms its results into policies, procedures, applications, and laws. Despite worldwide shared academic writing, reading, and publishing practices, the politics of writing and reading vary over time, disciplines and cultures. I argue that Arab knowledge production on sociolinguistics is highly affected by sociopolitical peculiarities, such as academic freedom restrictions, lack of resources and loose academic practices.

Résumé Construit comme une réponse au texte de Wolfgang Klein, cet article se propose de pousser aux extrêmes conséquences le raisonnement du linguiste allemand pour enfin le politiser. En m’appuyant sur un corpus théorique issu de l’Autonomie ouvrière italienne des années 70, du féminisme matérialiste et de la critique portée par Marcel Duchamp aux modes de production capitaliste dans l’art contemporain, je propose dans ce texte une réflexion autour des modes de production scientifique à l’ère du capitalisme néolibéral. Par ce que j’appelle une grève de publications et l’ouverture conséquente d’autres espaces temps possibles proches des performances artistiques, je propose de repenser les pratiques de travail scientifique par la déconstruction de l’articulation entre les pratiques de publication et l’identité du/de la chercheur.e.

This commentary is a response to Wolfgang Klein’s paper: Writing or reading, but not both, or: a proposal to reintroduce cuneiform writing using the hammer and chisel.

Wolfgang Klein’s observation in 1989 that a steady rise in academic publications affects a scientist’s capacity to read and write more extends to issues like funding, tenure, and citation on the one hand, and technological advancements like artificial intelligence that enable (and corrupt) research on the other. In documenting speakers’ linguistic behaviour in varied social settings, sociolinguistics journals are necessary platforms for the dissemination and archiving of sociolinguistic data. Like many academic journals, however, sociolinguistics journals also play a vital role in amassing information, simultaneously contributing to sociolinguistic progress and data excess. In this commentary, I agree with Klein that production should be reduced to some extent for authors to both read and write, and to contribute content in support of the research – not simply to be published.

In this article, we reflect upon Wolfgang Klein’s provocative suggestion, in  Writing or reading, but not both or: a proposal to reintroduce cuneiform writing using the hammer and chisel , that “every scientist” at universities or other research institutions “may and must publish exactly thirty pages a year.” In our view, Klein’s proposal to limit the number of pages each author should be allotted in a given year is comparable to a pill that treats the symptom but not the disease. Instead, we draw upon the ideas of American political theorist Nancy Fraser to argue for the need for a more radical transformation of the structures upon which the academic enterprise rests. Such a transformation would require (1) overhauling the underlying political-economic structure of academic labour relations, and (2) reconsidering what counts as a legitimate form of knowledge production. In saying so, we are also inspired by current theoretical debates about radical humanism and southern/decolonial perspectives to the sociology of language. Ultimately, we advocate for the need to disinvest from (1) individualism as a key principle of the academic project, at least in the humanities and the social sciences; and (2) the written word as the only medium for the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Such a proposal is underpinned by an emphasis on orality, the usage of other forms of representation, and the need for recognizing alternative ways of producing and disseminating (Indigenous) ways of being, knowing, and feeling.

Rapid developments in digital technologies have fundamentally changed writing practices leading to an explosion in the number of textual products. The result is a “textocalypse” – a deep crisis in knowledge production and dissemination. Instead of pushing back, academics fuel these degenerations because their careers have become subject to the capitalist imperative to produce and consume – measured in the form of research outputs and citation metrics. Against this background, this commentary argues for a reframing of academic publishing as community building and introduces Language on the Move , an alternative sociolinguistics portal that is both a publication platform and a research community. Motivated by a feminist ethics of care, we decenter the textual product and recenter the lived experience of researchers, particularly those writing from the margins.

This article engages with Wolfgang Klein’s (1989. Schreiben oder Lesen, aber nicht beides, oder: Vorschlag zur Wiedereinführung der Keilschrift mittels Hammer und Meißel. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik ) invitation in Schreiben oder Lesen, aber nicht beides, oder: Vorschlag zur Wiedereinführung der Keilschrift mittels Hammer und Meißel to think about the emergence of the knowledge industry and the extent to which it makes it impossible for readers of scientific journals to keep up with overproduction. Taking acceleration as a key economic property that governs contemporary academic capitalism, we explore some inner workings of this industry but also examples of collective (and prefigurative) initiatives that have attempted to undermine such workings in non-academic settings, in order to reflect more specifically on the possible implications for academic publishing. In so doing, we identify some relevant features as to how capitalist temporalities organise scientific editorial work, and provide a few focal points of consideration with the hope of contributing to wider conversations on how to begin (re)imagining alternative ways of doing academic publishing.

In an academic world in the throes of the audit culture, there is mileage in proposals that call for a reduction of research output. But while such a reduction is defensible on principle, and, indeed, a crucial measure to go against excessive output requirements, we are not sure it guarantees superior scholarship. In this commentary, we will suggest that calls for academic degrowth overlook the room for manoeuvre academics already have or should explore more readily, and that a significant downsizing of research output is not without its own disadvantages: it reduces the space for scholarly dialogue that we believe is essential for thinking, and it diminishes the scope for attentive reading without which there is no high-quality writing. We will bring these considerations to bear in discussing our practice at the helm of Multilingua , indicating how we attempt to hammer and chisel our way through the publishing industry.

Scholarly publishing in the Sinhala language (the language of the numerical majority in Sri Lanka) has “mushroomed” in the recent past. However, this rapid growth – fueled by instrumental professional needs, the mainstreaming of a metrics-based culture in the university system, and neo-liberal discourses about measurable academic productivity – we argue is of little intellectual consequence. We trace a history of how a vibrant Sinhala-language public culture emerged in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries within a larger history of decolonization; how this public culture became institutionalized within the postcolonial state from the late 1940s; and how Sinhala language publishing lost its state patronage in the 1980s with neo-liberalization which ironically created space for radical Sinhala-language intellectual debate. We conclude by contrasting this history with the present where Sinhala scholarly publishing has become banal and faces an existential threat from the “return” of English due to neo-liberal market forces.

This contribution responds to Wolfgang Klein’s text “Schreiben oder Lesen, aber nicht beides, oder: Vorschlag zur Wiedereinführung der Keilschrift mittels Hammer und Meißel” ( Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 74, 1989, 116–119) from the perspective of long-term editors of a traditional national linguistics journal, Slovo a slovesnost (Czech Republic). After providing a historical context for the journal’s contemporary position, we examine the issues that currently require the greatest degree of adaptation on our part. These include the politics of textual genres in light of the need to enhance transparency of research practice, the ongoing struggle to both maintain and improve the quality of peer review, and the gatekeeping role of the academic journal. We conclude by stating that while Klein’s original premise that something must be done about the problem of overproduction is well-intentioned, the excessive growth in the number of published texts is basically unavoidable, and that we can only combat its detrimental effects by clearly establishing and enacting our priorities (including the support for national languages) as authors, readers and editors.

Despite their vast potential, African languages are often marginalised in the knowledge production ecosystem. This article explores the multifaceted roles African languages could play not just in shaping and preserving indigenous knowledge systems and fostering cultural identities but also in being languages of science and communication of science. By examining the complex dynamics of the hierarchisation of languages within the knowledge production system, this article underscores the importance of decolonising knowledge production processes to amplify the vast untapped potential of African languages as languages of science and of knowledge production. Furthermore, the article discusses the potential of African languages as vehicles for innovation and inclusive development, advocating for concerted efforts to promote linguistic diversity and equity in scholarly discourse. The article contends that the underrepresentation of African languages has inadvertently necessitated more resources to be channelled towards increased publication in these languages.

The large volume of research (including linguistic research) being done and published in academia brings with it many challenges, apart from the impossible task of keeping up with it all. Inequality can be amplified in publishing, in terms of opportunities but also implicit bias. Finding willing, capable and available reviewers who actually deliver relevant and sensible reviews remains a challenge. Keeping track of citations, especially incorrect ones, can be difficult. The suggestion to publish much less could help deal with all of these issues, but it is unlikely to be widely accepted. Editors could consider working more closely together to address some of the more pervasive issues.

Drawing upon Wolfgang Klein’s concerns from 1989 about the overwhelming pace of academic publications and its shrinking readership, this commentary proposes strengthening local academic publishers to mitigate the impact of “academic fast fashion” – an ensuing phenomenon within the market-oriented academic landscape characterized by the rapid production, consumption, and disposal of scientific knowledge. By reflecting on our experience of establishing and maintaining local academic journals in Southern Luzon, Philippines, I illustrate the challenges that can be faced in this endeavor. I argue that if given proper support by appropriate academic infrastructures, local academic publishing can tap into a diverse audience to distill competition in readership apparent in today’s globally-oriented academic landscape while simultaneously cultivating local knowledge economies. Opening academic discourse to unconventional readers through local academic publications can thus fulfill Klein’s vision for a more inclusive advancement of knowledge.

Dromm ist ein Linguist, der die akademische Welt und damit die binäre Ordnung von submission und review verlassen hat. Er arbeitet meist als Experte, der ausgewählte cold cases löst, ist aber einem größeren Publikum vor allem durch seine Unterschrift in einem Requisiten-Gästebuch in der italienischen Serie Rocco Schiavone bekannt (Brignone 2019 [2016], Staffel 1,3: Sturz in den Tod, 32:02.). Er hat sowohl zur Linguistik der Nacht (Nassenstein & Storch 2022, Nachtlinguistik ) als auch zum Problem der Sprache als Teil der Allmende (Storch 2024, Im Ziegelplattengrab ) beigetragen. In diesem Beitrag legt er sein Verständnis der akademischen Linguistik als einer konstruierten Welt der Knappheit dar, in der viele Praktiken des Ausschlusses und der Marginalisierung unreflektiert und unangefochten bleiben.

While engaging with Klein’s (1989. Schreiben oder Lesen, aber nicht beides, oder: Vorschlag zur Wiedereinführung der Keilschrift mittels Hammer und Meißel. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 74. 116–119) suggestions to control the quantity of publications, this brief paper explores the reasons behind the intense publishing pressure on South Korean scholars and examines the consequences for the development of an academic public sphere. We underscore that the evaluation systems of neoliberal universities, which prioritize quantity and speed, together with a social concern with “fairness,” compel researchers to embrace a meritocratic ethos. This is further intensified by the multiple excellence benchmarks set by government research agencies. Moreover, the prevalence of insular academic networks, often formed by individuals from elite backgrounds, restricts the circulation of scholarly work within exclusive groups. Consequently, the academic environment in South Korea struggles to cultivate an academic public sphere that tackles critical issues and encourages productive debates. In response to these challenges, we propose to adopt the principles of the “slow professor” movement, foster collaboration with practitioners, and diversify scholarly genres.

Resumo Em nossa celebração dos 50 anos do International Journal of the Sociology of Language , sugerimos alguns caminhos alternativos à política de incomunicabilidade na comunicação científica denunciada, em 1989, por Wolfgang Klein. De modo bem humorado, Klein endereçou cientistas de língua alemã, apontando que políticas científicas e tecnologias produziam uma “aceleração unilateral da produção”. Isto é, ao passo que o regime de trabalho à época privilegiava a escrita, deixava pouco espaço para a leitura. Em nosso texto, apontamos para desigualdades que Klein não abordou, mas que intensificam esse cenário. Nossa perspectiva do sul global é um modo de questionar a hegemonia do inglês e o acesso pago à produção acadêmica.