Linguistic imperialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

The theory of Linguistic imperialism has since the early 1990s attracted the attention among scholars in the field of English applied linguistics, particularly since the publication of Robert Phillipson's influential book Linguistic Imperialism, which led to considerable disputes about the merits and shortcomings of the theory. Linguistic imperialism is often seen in the context of cultural imperialism.

Contents

[edit] Language imperialism

[edit] English language imperialism

Phillipson defines English linguistic imperialism as:

"the dominance asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages".

Phillipson's theory provides a powerful critique on the historical spread of English as an international language and how it continues to maintain its current dominance particularly in postcolonial contexts like India, Pakistan, Uganda, Zimbabwe, etc but also increasingly in "neo-colonial" contexts such as continental Europe. His theory draws mainly on Johan Galtung's imperialism theory, Antonio Gramsci's social theory and in particular his notion of cultural hegemony.

One of the central themes of Phillipson's theory is the series of complex hegemonic processes which, he asserts, continue to sustain the pre-eminence of English in the world today. His book analyzes the British Council's use of rhetoric to promote English, and discusses some of the key underlying tenets of English applied linguistics and English language teaching methodology. These are:

  • English is best taught monolingually ("the monolingual fallacy")
  • the ideal teacher is a native speaker ("the nativespeaker fallacy")
  • the earlier English is taught, the better the results ("the early start fallacy")
  • the more English is taught, the better the results ("the maximum exposure fallacy")
  • if other languages are used much, standards of English will drop ("the subtractive fallacy")

According to Phillipson those who promote English - that is organisations (like the British Council, the IMF and the World Bank) or single individuals, (those who operate English language schools, for instance) - use three types of argument:

  • English intrinsic arguments describe the language as God-given, rich, noble and interesting. These arguments usually assert what English is and other languages are not.
  • English extrinsic arguments point out that English is well established: there are trained teachers and a multitude of teaching material. There are also abundant immaterial resources like knowledge of the language.
  • English functional arguments emphasise the usefulness of English as a gateway to the world.

Other arguments for English are:

  • Its economic-reproductive function: it enables people to operate technology.
  • Its ideological function: it stands for modernity.
  • It is a symbol for material advance and efficiency.

Another very important theme in his work is what he calls "linguicism" the processes by which endangered languages become extinct or lose their local eminence as a direct result of the rising and competing prominence of English in disparate global contexts.

Defining linguistic imperialism is bound to be problematic and one's attitude towards the term will depend largely on one's personal political orientations particularly in terms of how a person relates to the increasing political, economic and military power of the English-speaking nations of the West.

[edit] Other language imperialism

At times, especially in colonial situations or where there is a dominant culture seeking to unify regions under its control, a similar feature has arisen. Thus in each of the Far East, Africa and South America, regional languages are being or have been coercively replaced or marginalised by dominant culture use within the more powerful culture - Tibetan by Chinese mandarins, Quechua marginalised by Spanish, and so on.

Despite the English language's reputation for linguistic imperialism, during the Middle Ages English too was the subject of linguistic imperialism from the French language, particularly following the Norman conquest. For hundreds of years, French or Anglo-Norman was the language of administration (See also Law French) and therefore a language of status in England above English. Latin remained the language of the church and of learning. Although many of the words introduced by the Normans are today indistinguishable to the majority of speakers from native words, later learned loanwords derived from Latin or French often have a more 'cultured' sound to a native English speaker as opposed to the English/Germanic derived synonym. .

Following the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire over much of present day Germany and Central Europe, the German language and dialects became the preferred language of choice for the aristocracy of Central Europe. With varying degrees of success, the German language spread across much of Central and Eastern Europe as the language of trade and status. This progression was finally brought to a cataclysmic end during World War II. See also Germanization.

Another example of language imperialism was seen in post-independence India. The powers-that-be started off trying to make Hindi as the sole "National language" of India, but due to protests from southern states (where Dravidian languages like Kannada, Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam, Konkani, Tulu, etc are spoken), the "National language" policy did not take off. Hindi, along with English has been made the "Official Languages of the Indian Union Government".

However after start of economic liberalization in 1991, English has become the lingua franca of business, higher education and research. In urban India, the medium of education in even primary schools nowadays is mostly English.

[edit] Criticism and counter-attack

[edit] The critics

Many scholars have participated in lively (not to say heated) discussions of Phillipson’s claims. Alan Davies, for instance, envisions the spectre of Phillipson haunting the Department of Applied Linguistics in Edinburgh:

"Round up the usual suspects", he cries, outing those who have pretended all these years merely to teach applied linguistics, but who have really been plotting with the British Council to take over the world (1996: 485).

For Davies two cultures inhabit Linguistic Imperialism: one is a culture of guilt ("colonies should never have happened") the other is that of romantic despair ("we shouldn’t be doing what we are doing"). Rajagopalan goes a step further and maintains that Phillipson’s book has led to a guilt complex among ELT professionals (1999: 200).

Phillipson’s claims are also not falsifiable, Davis argues: what "if the dominated...wanted to adopt English and continue to want to keep it? RP’s unfalsifiable answer must be that they don’t, they can’t, they’ve been persuaded against their better interests" (1996: 488).It has thus been argued that Phillipson’s theory is patronizing in the sense that it does not regard developing countries capable of independent decision (namely to adopt or not to adopt ELT). In the context of Nigeria Bisong holds that people in the so-called periphery use English pragmatically - they send their children to English-medium school precisely because they want them to grow up multilingual. Regarding Phillipson, Bisong maintains that "to interpret such actions as emanating from people who are victims of Centre linguistic imperialism is to bend sociolinguistic evidence to suit a preconceived thesis" (1995 [1994]: 125). If English should be abolished because it is foreign, Bisong argues, then Nigeria itself would also have to be dissolved because it was conceived as a colonial structure.

Furthermore, the assumption that the English language itself is imperialistic has come under attack. Henry Widdowson has argued that "there is a fundamental contradiction in the idea that the language of itself exerts hegemonic control: namely that if this were the case, you would never be able to challenge such control" (1998a: 398). Additionally, the idea that the promotion of English necessarily implies a demotion of local languages has been challenged. Holborrow points out that "not all Englishes in the centre dominate, nor are all speakers in the periphery equally discriminated against" (1993: 359; see also Bisong 1995 [1994]: 124). Irish English, for instance, could be regarded as a non-dominant centre variety of English.

To sum up it could be argued that while those who follow Phillipson see choices about language as externally imposed, the other camp sees them as decisions made by individuals (Davies 1997: 248).

[edit] Counter-attack

Those who support the arguments in favour of linguistic imperialism claim that arguments against it are often advanced by monolingual native-speakers of English who may see the current status of English as a fact worthy of celebration.

In contrast, it has been argued that those who see the increasing spread of English in the world as a worrying development (that marginalises the status of local and regional languages as well as potentially undermining or eroding cultural values) are likely to be far more receptive to Phillipson's views. Alastair Pennycook, Suresh Canagarajah, Adrian Holliday and Julian Edge broadly fall into this group and are often described as critical applied linguists. However, Henry Widdowson’s remarks on critical discourse analysis may also be applied to those Phillipson’s linguistic imperialism and the critical applied linguists:

It ought surely to be possible to say that an argument is confused, or an analysis flawed, without denying the justice of the cause they support. My view would be that if a case is just then we should look for ways of supporting it by coherent argument...And I would indeed argue that to do otherwise is to do a disservice to the cause. For the procedures of ideological exposure by expedient analysis...can, of course be taken up to further any cause, right wing as well as left...If you have the conviction and commitment, you will always find your witch (1998b:150).

[edit] Appropriation theory

Among those who reject linguistic imperialism some argue that the phenomenon of the global spread of English is better understood in the framework of appropriation(e.g. Spichtinger 2000), that is English used for local purposes around the world. Additionally to the example of Nigeria, quoted above, the following examples have been given:

  • Demonstrators in non-English speaking countries often use signs in English to convey their demands to TV-audiences around the globe. In some cases the person may not even understand what the sign he or she carries says.
  • Bobda shows how Cameroon has moved away from a monocultural, Anglocentred way of teaching English and has gradually appropriated teaching material to a Cameroonian context. Non Western-topics treated are, for instance, the rule of Emirs, traditional medicine or polygamy (1997:225). Bobda argues for bicultural education, that is, he wants to present both Cameroonian and Anglo-American cultures (1997: 234).
  • Kramsch and Sullivan (1996) describe how Western methodology and textbooks have been appropriated to suit local Vietnamese culture.
  • The Pakistani textbook "Primary Stage English" includes lessons such as "Pakistan My Country", "Our Flag", or "Our Great Leader" (Malik 1993: 5,6,7) which might well sound jingoistic to Western ears. Within the native culture, however, establishing a connection between ELT, patriotism and Muslim faith is seen as one of the aims of ELT, as the chairman of the Punjab Textbook Board openly states: "The board...takes care, through these books to inoculate in the students a love of the Islamic values and awareness to guard the ideological frontiers of your [the students] home lands" (Punjab Text Book Board 1997).

Such an "internationalisation" of English might also bring new possibilities for native speakers of the language. McCabe elaborates:

...whereas for two centuries we exported our language and our customs in hot pursuit of...fresh markets, we now find that our language and our customs are returned to us but altered so that they can be used by others...so that our own language and culture discover new possibilities, fresh contradictions" (1985: 45).

[edit] See also

[edit] Sources and further reading

  • Bisong, Joseph (1995 [1994]) Language Choice and cultural Imperialism: a Nigerian Perspective. ELT Journal 49/2 122-132.
  • Bobda, Augustin Simo (1997) Sociocultural Constraints in EFL Teaching in Cameroon. In: Pütz, Martin (ed.) The cultural Context in Foreign Language Teaching. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang. 221-240.
  • Brutt-Griffler, Janina (2002) World English. Multilingual Matters. ISBN 1-85359-577-2
  • Canagarajah, A. Suresh (1999), Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-442154-6
  • Canagarajah, A. Suresh, Thomas Ricento & Terrence G. Wiley [eds.] (2002) Journal of Language, Identity, and Education. Special issue. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0-8058-9629-5
  • Canagarajah, A. Suresh [ed.] (2004) Reclaiming the Local in Language Policy and Practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0-8058-4593-3
  • Crystal, David (2003), English as a Global Language, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-53032-6
  • Davies, Alan (1996) Review Article: ironising the Myth of Linguicism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 17/6: 485-596.
  • Davies, Alan (1997) Response to a Reply. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 18/3 248.
  • Edge, Julian [ed.] (2006) (Re-)Locating TESOL in an Age of Empire. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1-4039-8530-8
  • Holborow, Marnie (1999) Politics of English. Sage Publications. ISBN 0-7619-6018-X
  • Holborrow, Marnie (1993) Review Article: linguistic Imperialism. ELT Journal 47/4 358-360.
  • Holliday, Adrian (2005), Struggle to Teach English as an International Language , Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-442184-8
  • Kontra, Miklos, Robert Phillipson, Tove Skutnabb-Kangas & Tibor Varady [eds.] (1999), Language: A Right and a Resource, Central European University Press. ISBN 963-9116-64-5
  • Kramsch, Klaire and Particia Sullivan (1996) Appropriate Pedagogy. ELT Journal 50/3 199-212.
  • Malik, S.A. Primary Stage English (1993). Lahore: Tario Brothers.
  • Pennycook, Alastair (1995), The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language, Longman. ISBN 0-582-23473-5
  • Pennycook, Alastair (1998), English and the Discourses of Colonialism, Routledge. ISBN 0-415-17848-7
  • Pennycook, Alastair (2001), Critical Applied Linguistics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0-8058-3792-2
  • Pennycook, Alastair (in press) Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-37497-9
  • Phillipson, Robert (1992), Linguistic Imperialism, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-437146-8
  • Phillipson, Robert [ed.] (2000), Rights to Language, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0-8058-3835-X
  • Phillipson, Robert (2003) English-Only Europe? Routledge. ISBN 0-415-28807-X
  • Punjab Text Book Board (1997) My English Book Step IV. Lahore: Metro Printers.
  • Rajagopalan, Kanavilli (1999) Of EFL Teachers, Conscience and Cowardice. ELT Journal 53/3 200-206.
  • Ramanathan, Vaidehi (2005) The English-Vernacular Divide. Multilingual Matters. ISBN 1-85359-769-4
  • Rahman, Tariq (1996) Language and Politics in Pakistan Karachi: Oxford University Press
  • Ricento, Thomas [ed.] (2000) Ideology, Politics, and Language Policies. John Benjamins. ISBN 1-55619-670-9
  • Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove & Robert Phillipson [eds.]; Mart Rannut (1995), Linguistic Human Rights, Mouton De Gruyter. ISBN 3-11-014878-1
  • Sonntag, Selma K. (2003) The Local Politics of Global English. Lexington Books. ISBN 0-7391-0598-1
  • Spichtinger, Daniel (2000) The Spread of English and its Appropriation. University of Vienna, Vienna.
  • Tsui, Amy B.M. & James W. Tollefson (in press) Language Policy, Culture, and Identity in Asian Contexts. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0-8058-5694-3
  • Widdowson, H.G. (1998a) EIL: squaring the Circles. A Reply. World Englishes 17/3 397-401.
  • Widdowson, H.G. (1998b) The Theory and Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis. Applied Linguistics 19/1 136-151.

[edit] External links

Hindi Imperialism:

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/n/Linguistic_imperialism.html"