Linguistic imperialism

Linguistic imperialism or language imperialism is defined as "the transfer of a dominant language to other people".

This language transfer, or more accurately, unilateral imposition, is a consequence of imperialism. The transfer signifies power, traditionally associated with military power but in the modern context, also encompassing economic power. Typically, aspects of the dominant culture are transferred alongside the language. Geographically, while hundreds of Europe's indigenous languages function as official (state) languages in Eurasia, non-indigenous imperial (European) languages serve this role almost exclusively in the "Rest of the World". In contemporary discourse, linguistic imperialism may also be examined within the framework of international development. It influences the criteria by which organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank assess the reliability and value of structural adjustment loans, often reflecting perspectives commonly emphasized in English-language discourse rather than a neutral stance (linguistic relativism).

Since the early 1990s, linguistic imperialism has garnered significant academic attention within applied linguistics. Notably, Robert Phillipson's 1992 publication, Linguistic Imperialism, stimulated considerable debate regarding the phenomenon's advantages and disadvantages. Phillipson's research identified historical critiques of linguistic imperialism, including those from Nazi Germany concerning the British Council (at a time when European aristocracy increasingly adopted English), and Soviet analyses characterizing English as the language of world capitalism and world domination. In this context, criticism of English as a global language is frequently associated with anti-globalism.

Definition

Linguistic imperialism is a form of linguicism which benefits and grants power to the dominating/oppressing language and its speakers. As summarized by linguists Heath Rose and John Conama, Dr. Phillipson argues that the defining characteristics of linguistic imperialism are:

As a form of linguicism, which manifests in favoring the dominant language over another along similar lines as racism and sexism.
As a structurally manifested idea, where more resources and infrastructure are given to the dominant language
As being ideological, in that it encourages beliefs that the dominant language form is more prestigious than others. These ideas are hegemonic and internalized and naturalized as being "normal".
As intertwined with the same structure as imperialism in culture, education, media, and politics.
As having an exploitative essence, which causes injustice and inequality between those who use the dominant language and those who do not.
As having a subtractive influence on other languages, in that learning the dominant language is at the expense of others.
As being contested and resisted, because of these factors.

Although it is not easy to determine the intentions of specific policies which have led to linguicism, some scholars believe that intent can be proven by observing whether imperialist practices are continued once their sociolinguistic, sociological, psychological, political, and educational harm of other languages are made aware.

History

The impacts of colonization on linguistic traditions vary based on the form of colonization experienced: trader, settler or exploitation. Congolese-American linguist Salikoko Mufwene describes trader colonization as one of the earliest forms of European colonization. In regions such as the western coast of Africa as well as the Americas, trade relations between European colonizers and indigenous peoples led to the development of pidgin languages. As trader colonization proceeded mainly via these hybrid languages, rather than the languages of the colonizers, scholars like Mufwene contend that it posed little threat to indigenous languages. In countries such as Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, and those in the Caribbean, segregation and genocide decimated indigenous societies. Today, in countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia, which were once settler colonies, indigenous languages are spoken by only a small minority of the populace.

thumb|Portrait of Lord Macaulay

Mufwene also draws a distinction between settler colonies and exploitation colonies. In the latter, the process of colonization was focused on the extraction of raw materials needed in Europe. The linguistic differences between the local elite and other locals exacerbated class stratification, and also increased inequality in access to education, industry and civic society in postcolonial states. English is often called a worldwide "lingua franca", but Phillipson argues that when its dominance leads to a linguicide, it can be more aptly titled a "lingua frankensteinia" by his view.

Phillipson's theory supports the historic spread of English as an international language and that language's continued dominance, particularly in postcolonial settings such as Wales, Scotland, Ireland, India, Pakistan, Uganda, Zimbabwe, etc., but also increasingly in "neo-colonial" settings such as continental Europe. His theory draws mainly on Johan Galtung's imperialism theory, Antonio Gramsci's theory, and in particular on his notion of cultural hegemony.

Other regions

Anatolia had similar linguistic diversity when it was ruled by small native states. Under the Persian and Hellenistic empires, the tongue of the conqueror served as the lingua franca. The indigenous Anatolian languages disappeared.

Regional languages in Asia and the Americas have been or are being coercively replaced or slighted – namely Tibetan, Uyghur and regional Chinese varieties by Mandarin Chinese, Ainu and Ryukyuan by Japanese, Quechuan and Mesoamerican languages by Spanish, Philippine languages by Filipino, and regional Malayo-Polynesian languages by Malay (including Indonesian).

Arabization has eliminated many indigenous Berber languages in North Africa and supplanted Coptic as the spoken language in Egypt, restricting its use to the Coptic Christian Orthodox and Coptic Catholic Churches as a liturgical language.

Criticism

Many scholars have participated in lively discussions of Phillipson's claims. Alan Davies, for instance, envisions the ghost of Phillipson haunting the Department of Applied Linguistics in Edinburgh:

For Davies, two cultures inhabit linguistic imperialism: one, a culture of guilt ("colonies should never have happened"); the other, that of romantic despair ("we shouldn't be doing what we are doing"). Rajagopalan goes a step farther and maintains that Phillipson's book has led to a guilt complex among English language learning and teaching (ELT) professionals.

Davies also argues that Phillipson's claims are not falsifiable: what "if the dominated... wanted to adopt English and continue to want to keep it? Phillipson's unfalsifiable answer must be that they don't, they can't, they've been persuaded against their better interests." It has thus been argued that Phillipson's theory is patronizing in its implication that developing countries lack independent decision-making capacity (to adopt or not to adopt ELT). In the context of Nigeria, Bisong holds that people in the "periphery" use English pragmatically—they send their children to English-language schools 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". 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". 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". Hiberno-English or New Zealand English or even England's regional dialects such as Cornish English, for instance, could be regarded as a non-dominant centre variety of English.

Some scholars believe that English's dominance is not due to specific language policies, but rather as a side-effect of the spread of English-speaking colonists through colonization and globalization.

Thus it could be argued that, while those who follow Phillipson see choices about language as externally imposed, the other camp sees them as personal choices.

Response

Those who support the arguments favoring the existence 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.

Those who see the increasing spread of English in the world as a worrying development (which lowers the status of local and regional languages as well as potentially undermining or eroding cultural values) are likely to be more receptive to Phillipson's views. Alastair Pennycook, Suresh Canagarajah, Adrian Holliday and Julian Edge fall into this group and are described as critical applied linguists.

However, Henry Widdowson’s remarks on critical discourse analysis may also be applied to the critical applied linguists:

In Ireland, the issue of de-anglicising the influence of English has been a topic of debate in the country even before independence. An argument for de-anglicisation was delivered before the Irish National Literary Society in Dublin, 25 November 1892; "When we speak of 'The Necessity for De-Anglicising the Irish Nation', we mean it, not as a protest against imitating what is best in the English people, for that would be absurd, but rather to show the folly of neglecting what is Irish, and hastening to adopt, pell-mell, and indiscriminately, everything that is English, simply because it is English."

Appropriation

Some who reject the idea of linguistic imperialism argue that the global spread of English is better understood in the framework of appropriation—that English is used around the world for local purposes. In addition to the example of Nigeria, other examples have been given:

Demonstrators in non-English-speaking countries often use signs in English to convey their demands to TV audiences around the world. In some cases, demonstrators may not understand what their signs say.
Bobda shows how Cameroon has moved away from a mono-cultural, Anglo-centered way of teaching English and has gradually accommodated teaching materials to a Cameroonian context. Non-Western topics are treated, such as rule by emirs, traditional medicine, and polygamy. Bobda argues for bi-cultural, Cameroonian and Anglo-American education.
Kramsch and Sullivan describe how Western methodology and textbooks have been appropriated to suit local Vietnamese culture.
Spowage adapts the idea of appropriation, suggesting that the spread of English is driven by local governments and political elites, rather than the use of English for grassroots purposes. She demonstrates this through a study of the growing importance of English in Rwanda, which she interprets as a strategy for establishing cultural hegemony. This leads Spowage to suggest an alternative to linguistic imperialism that features elements of the appropriation thesis, which she calls 'the global English nébuleuse'.
The Pakistani textbook Primary Stage English includes lessons such as "Pakistan, My Country", "Our Flag," and "Our Great Leader", which might sound jingoistic to western ears. Within the native culture, however, establishing a connection between ELT, patriotism and the Muslim faith is seen as an aim 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 student's] home lands."

Such an "internationalization" of English may also offer new possibilities to English native-speakers. McCabe elaborates:

Notes

References

Acar, A. (2006). "Models, Norms and Goals for English as an International Language Pedagogy and Task Based Language Teaching and Learning." The Asian EFL Journal Vol. 8 2006
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.
Canagarajah, A. Suresh (1999), Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching, Oxford University Press.
Canagarajah, A. Suresh, Thomas Ricento & Terrence G. Wiley [eds.] (2002) Journal of Language, Identity, and Education. Special issue. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Canagarajah, A. Suresh [ed.] (2004) Reclaiming the Local in Language Policy and Practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crystal, David (2003), English as a Global Language, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press.
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.
Holborow, Marnie (1999) Politics of English. Sage Publications.
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.
Kontra, Miklos, Robert Phillipson, Tove Skutnabb-Kangas & Tibor Varady [eds.] (1999), Language: A Right and a Resource, Central European University Press.
Kramsch, Klaire and Patricia Sullivan (1996) Appropriate Pedagogy. ELT Journal 50/3 199–212.
Malik, S.A. Primary Stage English (1993). Lahore: Tario Brothers.
Master, Peter (1998) Positive and Negative Aspects of the Dominance of English. TESOL Quarterly, 32/4. 716–727.
Pennycook, Alastair (1995), The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language, Longman.
Pennycook, Alastair (1998), English and the Discourses of Colonialism, Routledge.
Pennycook, Alastair (2001), Critical Applied Linguistics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pennycook, Alastair (2006) Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. Routledge.
Phillipson, Robert (1992), Linguistic Imperialism, Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, Robert [ed.] (2000), Rights to Language, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Phillipson, Robert (2003) English-Only Europe? Routledge.
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.
Rahman, Tariq (1996) Language and Politics in Pakistan Karachi: Oxford University Press
Ricento, Thomas [ed.] (2000) Ideology, Politics, and Language Policies. John Benjamins.
Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove & Robert Phillipson [eds.]; Mart Rannut (1995), Linguistic Human Rights, Mouton De Gruyter.
Silva, Diego B. (2019). Language policy in Oceania. Alfa, Rev. Linguíst. 63 (2).
Sonntag, Selma K. (2003) The Local Politics of Global English. Lexington Books.
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.
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.