''The stigmatizing effect of Goffman's stigma label: a response to John Flowerdew''

Abstract The way we use words to discuss complex phenomena such as writing for scholarly publication matters greatly, particularly if we are distinguishing between EAL writers and English L1 gatekeepers. In this response to Flowerdew, I argue that using Goffman's concept of stigma to discuss possible discrimination against EAL writers serves only to oversimplify complex issues and to obscure the great diversity within groups that get lumped under the labels of EAL scholarly writers (the ''stigamatized'') and L1 writers, journal editors, and reviewers (the ''normals''). The realities of scholarly publishing for all writers need to be addressed in less dichotomizing ways. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: EAL scholarly writers; Stigma; Labels; Writing for publication; Gatekeepers; Writing problems John Flowerdew (2008) is to be praised for his obviously strong support of EAL writers and their efforts to publish their scholarly work in international English-language journals. As he and others have pointed out, scholars world wide who publish in their L2 of English represent a numerical majority who continue to struggle with minority status relative to L1 scholars. To help redress this imbalance, many of us, both L1 and L2 users of English, seek ways to assist all aspiring scholarly writers in their efforts to share their work as broadly as possible, thus exposing work that would otherwise remain local to the attention of international audiences. For better or for worse, English seems to be the lingua franca in these endeavors for the foreseeable future. Real and perceived discrimination against EAL scholarly writers is a blight on our field. The problem needs to be recognized and rectified, particularly by those in charge of scholarly gatekeeping. However, in addressing the problem of discrimination against EAL scholars, Flowerdew uses Goffman's concept of stigma (1969( , as cited in Flowerdew, 2008 to set EAL scholars apart from ''normals''dL1 gatekeepers such as journal editors and reviewers. Although he notes that many gatekeepers these days are EALs themselves, the dichotomy of the stigmatized (EAL writers) and the ''normals'' forms the heart of his discussion. The comparison foregrounds images of EAL writers that are unsavory at best, and inaccurate and paradoxically even more stigmatizing at worst. The dichotomy and the labels thus end up doing more harm than good. Caveats and scare quotes notwithstanding, we are presented in this article with Goffman's characterizations of the stigmatized in ways that I believe should not be applied to aspiring scholarly EAL writers. The initial quote tha