سیاوش ذکاییه

This review article examines the underpinning of the little-researched, influential elements that create linguistic injustice in the specific contexts of linguistic imperialism through standardization. To this end, with a review of critical views that includes argumentation and discussion of theoretical and empirical studies, we further aim to highlight linguistic injustice in writing for publishing. The domination of the English language as a lingua academia has not happened neutrally and can create unjust and unequal situations. In knowledge construction, the prosperity of researchers and academics is tied to international publication, and this action supports globalization, individualism, and standardization in favor of native English users. The domination of the English language in academic settings may be a hegemonic practice of native Anglophones to maintain power.  In this review, we underline the possibilities for privileged communities to pinpoint linguistic inequality and injustice.  The nature of academia should be liberal and liberating; however, in reality, academic settings are politically partisan and at the service of the powerful and wealthy. Still, there is slim hope that the system can change, and one of such profound changes may happen with equal access to resources and mentors for marginalized communities. In this case, the minorities’ voices may also be heard and respected globally.

This study has been carried out to develop a critical checklist for global/commercial textbooks which play a crucial role in language teaching/learning. For this aim, a number of items have been developed based on a comprehensive review of the related literature and experts’ opinions. The tentative checklist was administered to the targeted population, yet 326 checklists were deemed appropriate for the analysis. The statistical analyses utilized in this study were exploratory factor analysis and partial confirmatory factor analysis. Prior to the exploratory factor analysis, a correlation analysis reduced the items into 44. Next, the exploratory factor analysis identified ten components. Additionally, six items were excluded from the checklist due to simultaneous factor loading and the finalized checklist was truncated into 38 items.  To investigate the possibility for further validation studies, the result of partial confirmatory factor analysis was not statistically significant.  Results of this study have the potentials to shed some lights on the ideological aspects of textbook evaluation.