This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]On: 06 November 2014, At: 13:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Language and Intercultural CommunicationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmli20

Moving Towards ‘Us-Others’ Reciprocity:Implications of Glocalisation for LanguageLearning and Intercultural CommunicationMartin East aa Unitec New Zealand / The University of AucklandPublished online: 19 Dec 2008.

To cite this article: Martin East (2008) Moving Towards ‘Us-Others’ Reciprocity: Implications of Glocalisationfor Language Learning and Intercultural Communication, Language and Intercultural Communication, 8:3,156-171, DOI: 10.1080/14708470802167776

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14708470802167776

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in thispublication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Moving Towards ‘Us-Others’ Reciprocity:Implications of Glocalisation forLanguage Learning and InterculturalCommunication

Martin EastUnitec New Zealand / The University of Auckland

Learning new languages potentially gives people vital skills to build moresuccessful relationships, and understanding the social influences at work todaymay help us to know which type of language education is most beneficial. Thisarticle explores three social influences � globalisation, localisation and glocalisation� from the perspective of their effect on language use. It is suggested thatglocalisation provides the most useful term to describe the reality of socialinteraction at the start of the 21st century and that language education should beshaped by the impact of this social influence on language use.

Te akoranga o nga reo hou ka pakari te tangata ki nga puukenga taketake, hei hangawhanaungatanga whai hua, me te mohio hoki ki nga tini ahuatanga e paa ana ki temahi o te ao nei, a, ka whai awhi tatou ki te mohio ko tehea te momo whakaakorangareo te mea tino manako. Ko tenei tuhi panui e rangahau ana i nga ahuatanga e toru.Ko te ao, te taiwhanga, me te ao taiwhanga, mai hoki te aronga o nga otinga mo ngamahi reo. E mea ana ko te ‘ao taiwhanga’ te wahanga tino pai ki te whakaaturia atu tengako o te whakawhitwhiti, mai te tımatatanga o te rautau rua tekau ma tahi, me tewhakaaro kia whakaritengia ano te whakaakoranga reo mai te papatanga o nga tiniahuatanga e pa ano ki nga mahi reo.

doi: 10.1080/14708470802167776

Keywords: globalisation, glocalisation, language learning, language teaching,self-identity

IntroductionTo a very large extent, the language that we speak as our first language (L1)

defines who we are in relation to others. Languages are therefore veryimportant contributors to our sense of self-identity and belonging.1 Duszak(2002) argues that in our interactions with others we look for clues that willhelp us to recognise who we could be close to and who we are likely to bemore distant from. Such clues may include symbols, gender, ethnic appear-ance, apparent age, patterns of action or logos on T-shirts. Most important,however, are the words we say: ‘No doubt language gives us a most powerfultool for conveying social identities, for telling (and making) friends and foes’(Duszak, 2002: 1). In other words, in a world where people often see theiridentity as being one of ‘us’ in relation, whether closely or at a distance, to‘others’, language is a key mediator in the relationship building process.

1470-8477/08/03 156-16 $20.00/0 – 2008 Taylor & FrancisLanguage and Intercultural Communication Vol. 8, No. 3, 2008

156

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

From this perspective, language educators (those involved professionallywith language teaching and learning) have a vital role to play. In teachingsecond or foreign languages (L2), along with an appreciation of the back-grounds and cultures of those who speak those languages as L1, we arepotentially equipping our students with vital skills that will enable them toengage with others in a more positive way, because ‘language has manyresources to actualise the us-them distinction and make it relevant for how � if atall � individuals and groups engage in (further) interaction’ (Duszak, 2002: 6).

If, however, language carries such a vital social function, it is important forus as language educators to understand the kinds of social influences that areat work on individuals and groups today, and to consider the linguisticimplications of such influences. This paper therefore explores three majorsocial influences � globalisation, localisation and glocalisation � that, accord-ing to the social psychologist Carr (2003), impact strongly on beliefs and socialbehaviour. Each is explored from the perspective of its effect on language use,and a review of relevant literature related to each is presented. Although it isnot suggested that there is a linear or sequential relationship between thesethree social influences (it is, rather, suggested that glocalisation is perhaps themost useful term to describe the reality of social interaction at the start of the21st century), separating the three provides a useful means of throwing intorelief the kinds of language issues of which we should be mindful.Conclusions are then drawn, and recommendations made, for the type oflanguage education that is perhaps the most beneficial at the start of a newmillennium.

Social Influences and Their Effect on Language UseA large part of individuals’ self-concept arises from interactions with

others, or, as Tajfel and Forgas (1981) assert, ‘[w]e are what we are becausethey are not what we are’ (p. 124). Duszak (2002) argues that ‘[i]t is natural forpeople to make the distinction between Us and Others (or Them). We have asense of sharing things with some, who are like us, and not sharing things withothers, who are unlike us’ (p. 1). Duszak suggests that the language we speakis a primary mediator of who we are in relation to others, or, as Duszak puts it,‘[a]dopting a linguistic profile on the us-them distinction, we could simply saythat they (Others) are those who cannot speak our language’ (p. 1). Tonkin(2003) asserts that ‘[l]anguage . . . is one of the primary means whereby wedefine ourselves, and ourselves in relation to other people. It is also one of themajor socially sanctioned devices for public display . . . perhaps the mosteffective means of imposing our personality, and also our will, on others, isthrough the effective deployment of language’ (p. 145). For Tonkin, ‘[l]an-guages are social institutions, accorded a particular value or lack of value in aparticular society, and we need to be aware of the rather obvious fact that suchissues of prestige and hierarchy are socially constructed by people likeourselves’ (p. 146).

Duszak (2002) acknowledges that language is but one means of assertingdistinction between ‘us’ and ‘others’. Nevertheless she argues that thetheoretical frameworks of communicative competence upon which we as

Moving Towards ‘Us�Others’ Reciprocity 157

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

language educators frequently build our teaching have embraced the socialpart of language and have placed emphasis on genuine interaction betweenpeople in social contexts:

Pending the elaboration of the idea of communicative competence, a newconstruct was generated with a clear focus on social reciprocity in howlinguistic patterns match contextual configurations. People were broughttogether by having a shared code of meanings and by having a similarability to resource that code in communication. To the extent to whichcommunication means an exchange of meanings it also produces theeffect of belonging to a group for whom dialogue is both feasible andnatural. (pp. 3�4, emphasis in original)

Duszak’s conceptualisation of ‘communicative competence’ suggests that the‘negotiation of meaning’ � a concept that, according to Kramsch and Thorne(2002), has been ‘at the heart of foreign language teaching since the 1970’s’ (p.83) � bridges the divide between us and others and creates a sense of‘belonging’. Kramsch and Thorne suggest, however, a developed concept ofcommunication, ‘based on the need to identify with and belong to a communityof discursive practice’ (p. 84, my emphasis), which moves beyond a purelylinguistic ‘meaning exchange’. Furthermore, Liddicoat and Crozet (2000)argue that ‘[c]ommunicative competence is now being redefined in terms ofcross-cultural understanding, intercultural and critical communicative com-petence’ (p. 3). Lo Bianco et al. (1999) suggest a new paradigm � InterculturalLanguage Teaching (ILT) � an approach which ‘prepares language learners toknow how to negotiate comfortable third places between the self and the other/the foreign’ (p. 1, emphasis in original). The ‘third place’ notion refers to ‘acomfortable unbounded and dynamic space which intercultural communica-tors create as they interact with each other and in their attempt to bridge thegap between cultural differences’ (Liddicoat & Crozet, 2000: 1). Operatingwithin the ‘third place’ arguably enhances the sense of identification andbelonging. Within this paradigm, Duszak’s ‘communicative competence’requires both linguistic and intercultural competence.

Given the importance of the mediation of effective communication betweencultures, and in order to understand exactly why ‘striving for the third place’(Lo Bianco et al., 1999) is postulated as a laudable aim, there is benefit inexploring the processes of social influence that are at work on individuals andgroups today and extrapolating from that exploration the implications forlanguage education.

Globalisation and the Eradication of the ‘Other’Carr (2003) suggests ‘three powerful new social influences’ (p. 7)

� globalisation,2 localisation and glocalisation. Although Carr concedes thatthe term ‘globalisation’ means many things to many people, Carr’s perspectiveis that globalisation ‘signifies the diffusion of a uniform mode of acting(behaviour), believing (cognition) or feeling (affect) within groups, betweengroups, and between an individual and a group. These modes of influence areoften, but not only, ‘Western’ in flavour’ (p. 7).

158 Language and Intercultural Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

It may further be asserted that the flavour of influence is not so much‘westernised’ as ‘Americanised’, hence the familiar term ‘McDonaldisation’(Ritzer, 1993, 2004) as a pseudonym for ‘globalisation’. This reality is sopervasive that Tonkin (2003) notes that ‘[i]n a sense, Americans are today alltoo clearly aware of the world, which has come to resemble America itself,with the same cultural products, the same corporate environment, and (amonga certain elite) the same value system’ (p. 154). Phillipson (2003) informs usthat globalisation is ‘understood by Condoleezza Rice, President George W.Bush’s foreign affairs adviser, in precisely this sense: ‘‘The rest of the world isbest served by the USA pursuing its own interests because American valuesare universal’’’ (p. 75).

This type of universalisation appears to carry with it an assumption that thebest global scenario is the subsuming of ‘others’ into the construction of aglobal ‘us’. It would seem that globalisation has introduced a type of worldinterdependence in which there are no ‘others’ (Giddens, 1990).

From a linguistic perspective it is widely acknowledged that English hasbecome the central conduit of globalising forces � a phenomenon that reflectsthe notion of ‘linguistic imperialism’ (Phillipson, 1992). Bruthiaux (2003)suggests that as a result those who wish to engage in communication on aninternational level appear to regard knowledge of English as fundamental toprofessional success and enhanced well-being. English may therefore legiti-mately be described as a ‘language of rule’ (Pool, 1993), a knowledge of whichmay lead to ‘appreciable gains’ (Grin, 2001: 75). For Bruthiaux the dominanceof English has now become a self-reinforcing process partly because theamount of information encoded into English is rapidly increasing, and partlybecause English is increasingly being adopted as the preferred medium ofglobal communication, thereby making it more and more attractive as alanguage to learn. As a result potential participants in global communicationare less and less inclined to put in the effort to learn a language other thanEnglish. Speakers of English as a first language increasingly rely on others touse English with them, and learners of English see no need to promote anotherlanguage as a contributor to global communication. For these speakers, ‘theeffect of critical mass rules out any thought that a serious competitor toEnglish as a global language may even exist’ (Bruthiaux, 2003: 12). Indeed, forBruthiaux ‘critical mass is key and may prove to be the single most importantfactor underpinning the continued dominance of English as a global language’(p. 21), so much so that ‘it is predicted that it would take a geopoliticalrealignment on a catastrophic scale for English to be supplanted as thedominant language of global communication in the remainder of the twenty-first century’ (p. 22).

This is therefore the linguistic reality with which, it seems, people all overthe world are having to deal. If, as Giddens (1990) suggests, globalisation hasindeed introduced new forms of world interdependence in which there are no‘others’, from a linguistic perspective English has effectively overtaken allother languages and, at least at the level of global or international commu-nication, has effectively removed the ‘us�others’ dichotomy: the ‘others’ havebecome subsumed into a global ‘us’, and the language in which ‘we’ aretalking is English. English is therefore arguably the most useful language for

Moving Towards ‘Us�Others’ Reciprocity 159

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

international communication today, with the use of other languages forcommunication between different countries being quite restricted (Ammon,2003). Or, as Cameron (2002) suggests, ‘globalisation has given new legitimacy,and a new twist, to the long-lived idea that linguistic diversity is a problem,while linguistic uniformity is a desirable ideal’ (p. 67).

Such a reality has two negative societal corollaries. Firstly, Duszak (2002)argues that language users are ‘categorized on the basis of the type oflanguage that they own. That possession is a sign of ingroupness for some anda source of social stigmatization or rejection for others’ (p. 6). Duszak cites thesituation in her native Poland: ‘For many Poles some knowledge of English is ameans of fuller participation in modern life, and a better chance for prestigeand higher social status. The expansion of English has brought about asociologically profiled gradient of social presence and exclusion, of participa-tion in and alienation from communicative practice’ (pp. 16�17). Those whodo not speak English well or at all run the risk of being isolated in globalcommunicative terms. Duszak’s categorisation reflects Bourdieu’s (1982, 1991)notion whereby different speakers possess different capacities to producelanguage appropriate for a particular ‘market’ (different quantities of‘linguistic capital’) and therefore differ in their ability to exploit or benefitfrom that market.

Secondly, there would really appear to be no need for speakers of English asan L1 to contemplate the learning of any other language, at least forinternational communication. A 1979 President’s Commission into theimportance of foreign language learning in the US discovered that ‘mostexecutives don’t care much about languages, generally consider language aGood Thing, and have taken about all the time out of their busy schedules thatthey are willing to devote to thinking about the subject, thank you very much.As for learning foreign languages themselves, they did that once, and havegotten over it now, and, besides, everyone they deal with speaks English’(Tonkin, 2003: 149). Seen in the context of globalisation those who speakEnglish as an L1 have effectively insulated themselves against the need tolearn another language as an L2.

In other words, English is ‘the preferred vehicle for the kinds of socio-cultural aspirations likely to motivate potential learners and users to acquirethe language to a communicatively adequate standard’ (Bruthiaux, 2003: 10).Phillipson (2003) points out the example of the cover of the European editionof Business Week (13 August 2001) which posed the question in its bannerheadline: ‘Should everyone speak English?’ Phillipson observes that ‘[t]heinside story was flagged as ‘The Great English divide. In Europe, speaking thelingua franca separates the haves from the have-nots’. The cover drawingportrays twin business executives: one communicates successfully, the Englishspeaker; the other is mouthless, speechless’ (p. 4). Phillipson comments on theimplications of this article as follows: ‘English is here projected as beingimperative throughout Europe in the commercial world. By implication,proficiency in other languages gets you nowhere’ (p. 5). As such, Phillipsonconcludes that the forces of globalisation and Americanisation may be movinglanguage policy in the direction of monolingualism. This in turn often leads toa kind of ‘tokenistic multiculturalism’ � a recognition that other languages and

160 Language and Intercultural Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

cultures exist, but a belief that ‘otherness’ is of less significance than the ‘unity’brought about by using one language � English. As Lo Bianco et al. (1999)argue, ‘multiculturalism without multilingualism . . . promotes a passive formof multiculturalism where tolerance rather than participation in ‘‘otherness’’tend [sic] to dominate’ (p. 1).

Globalisation is, however, only one social influence on individuals andgroups. As a phenomenon it does not explain the diverse cultural andlinguistic landscape that confronts us as we consider language use in theworld today. It is therefore also important to consider the influence oflocalisation.

Localisation and the Reassertion of ‘Others’With regard to localisation as a counter-influence to the pressure of

globalisation Carr (2003) argues as follows:

A glance at CNN news will tell us that many communities around theworld are not taking this pressure lying down. They are ‘kicking back’,rebounding against what they perceive as constraints in globalisationitself. Fundamentalism and many forms of cultural backlash, includinganti-globalisation movements, are proliferating. Counter-cultures, reas-serting local and traditional values, are finding voice. (p. 8)

The existence of such localising forces has been acknowledged for a goodnumber of years. It has been suggested (Fitzgerald, 1994; Naisbitt, 1982, 1994;Naisbitt & Aburdene, 1990) that localising pressures are leading to aresurgence of language and cultural assertiveness, a type of counter-culturalrevolution in which individuals and groups emphasise their cultural andlinguistic uniqueness. The emergence of a so-called ‘world culture’ (Harris &Moran, 1991) has highlighted a strong tendency for groups and individuals toinsist that they are distinct and ‘other’ (Naisbitt & Aburdene, 1990). The moreeconomically interdependent nations become as a result of globalisation, themore assertive people will become about their own distinctiveness, especiallytheir languages (Naisbitt, 1982, 1994; Naisbitt & Aburdene, 1990). AsFitzgerald (1994) says, ‘[c]ultural diversity is ‘‘in’’; monoculturalism passe’(p. 190).

The linguistic implication of such localising trends is essentially two-fold.There is first the resurgence of the value and importance of local indigenouslanguages and cultures, for example, the rise in status of native AmericanIndian or the re-establishment of Maori in New Zealand, the language oftangata whenua (the people of the land), which now enjoys status in law as anofficial language alongside English. Secondly, there is the recognition of thevalue and importance of languages other than English. The European Union isa case in point. In the face of the widespread use of English as a lingua francaat official levels within the EU, there has been a resurgence of emphasis on thevalue and importance of the many languages that make up the EU. Phillipson(2003) points out that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, approvedby the European Parliament and the European Council and Commission inDecember 2000, commits the EU not only to seek to prevent discrimination on

Moving Towards ‘Us�Others’ Reciprocity 161

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

grounds of language, nationality or membership of a national minority (Article21), but also to respect linguistic diversity (Article 22). In Phillipson’s view,‘[m]ultilingualism appears to have become an EU mantra’ (p. 129). Phillipsonquotes several published statements that underline this apparent commitment:

. ‘Equal status for the official languages, or multilingualism, goes to theheart of what Europe is all about’.

. ‘The EU wants to preserve, defend and foster language diversity . . . Thebest way to bring people together is to respect their differences ratherthan coerce them into unity. This is the sign of real respect formultilingualism in the EU’.

. ‘Multilingualism is a democratic right of the peoples of Europe that needsto be preserved’ (Phillipson, 2003: 129).

These statements appear to be confirming a ‘localising’ trend which wouldseem to imply that there is a strong social influence towards multiculturalismand plurilingualism. In fact, Phillipson (2003) remarks that the statements‘serve to ‘‘foster language diversity’’ by enabling member states to continue tofunction monolingually’ (p. 129). The value and importance of the locallanguage of the individual member state is reinforced in a way that re-emphasises ‘us’ against the ‘other’ in the name of promoting linguisticdiversity and re-asserts an ‘us�others’ dichotomy.

Glocalisation � a term which acknowledges the push of globalising trendstowards homogeneity in language use and the centrality of English and, at thesame time, the pull of localising forces that re-assert individual languages andcultures � may, however, serve as a better vehicle to understand what isactually happening linguistically, and may help us to chart a way forward aslanguage educators.

Glocalisation: Towards ‘Us�Others’ ReciprocityWith regard to glocalisation, Carr (2003) argues that people are often being

pulled in conflicting directions. He cites the following illustration:

[One example] . . . is the experience of being a second- or third-generation immigrant, growing up knowing several, often conflictingcodes of acting, thinking and feeling. Young people in these circum-stances may find themselves sandwiched uncomfortably between the‘global’ culture of youth and the more ‘local’ values embodied in theircaregivers’ enduring traditional values. (p. 9)

Thus the term ‘glocalisation’ acknowledges the tension that exists betweenapparently conflicting forces of globalisation and localisation whereby ‘inter-actions, including conflicts between different systems of belief, have becomethe norm’ (p. 8, emphasis in original). ‘Glocalisation’ is in fact quite wellestablished as a means of describing influential forces, having been used inbusiness jargon since the 1980s (Robertson, 1994). Indeed, Robertson arguesthat the term is a much better means of expressing social phenomena than thedichotomous concepts of ‘global’ versus ‘local’. He suggests that there is ‘a

162 Language and Intercultural Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

‘‘mythology about globalisation’’ which sees that concept as referring todevelopments which involve the ‘‘triumph’’ of culturally homogenising forcesover all others’ such that ‘[m]uch of the talk about globalisation has, almostcasually, tended to assume that it is a process which overrides locality’(Robertson, 1994: 34). For Robertson,

There is a widespread tendency to regard [the global�local] problematicas straightforwardly indicating a polarity, which assumes its most acuteform in the claim that we live in a world of local assertions againstglobalising trends, a world in which the very idea of locality issometimes cast as a form of resistance to the hegemonically global orone in which the assertion of ‘locality’ or Gemeinschaft (‘community’) isseen as the pitting of subaltern ‘universals’ against the ‘particularuniversal’ of dominant cultures and/or classes. (p. 37, emphasis inoriginal)

Rather than therefore seeing the local as becoming ‘the context of opposition oradaptation to globalisation and its large-scale standardisation of social life’(Kraidy, 2003: 36), it is argued that ‘the local and the global need not alwaysbe opposites; rather they are engaged in a relational and reciprocal processwhose dynamics are mutually formative. In short, the local and the global arecomplementary competitors, feeding off each other as they struggle forinfluence’ (p. 38). There is therefore a need to ‘move beyond the oppositionalthinking of global versus local’ to thinking that ‘[the] global constitutes and isconstituted by the local and thus the global and the local interpenetrate’(Mowlana, 1994: 17), or as Bauman (1998) puts it, ‘[w]hat appears asglobalization for some means localization for others’ (p. 2). Bearing in mindthe significant overlap of the global and the local, and that the boundariesbetween them are ‘fluid and mercurial’ (Kraidy, 2003: 42), ‘glocalisation’ is themore appropriate notion.

There are arguably two linguistic implications to glocalising trends. Thefirst is the localisation of English to specific contexts � that is, the rise of ‘localEnglishes’ � together with a recognition of the importance of English as aglobal language and the acceptance of its widespread use in internationalcommunication. Bearing in mind the fluidity between the global and the local,this is one phenomenon with two consequences because it is difficult todetermine exactly where a global variety of English ends and local adaptationsof English begin.

Variations of English serve to ‘localise’ the global language as localinfluences are brought to bear on its use. Bruthiaux (2003) suggests thatEnglish is in fact a language that can be altered in local contexts because it islinguistically straightforward enough to withstand becoming unintelligible tothose outside the local contexts through such adaptation. As a result, ‘[g]lobalEnglish can be best described as a set of varieties closely related to a relativelystable core and capable of infinite adaptation in each local setting’ (Bruthiaux,2003: 13).

Two examples that serve to illustrate the localisation of English in specificcontexts are brought out in the documentary television series, Beyond Babel(Blythe, 2001a, 2001b), exploring the influence of English in a variety of

Moving Towards ‘Us�Others’ Reciprocity 163

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

spheres. One is the local variety of English used by African Americans who, byutilising an English that fitted into the mainstream and, in differentcircumstances, an English that was localised to their communities ‘grew . . .to have two existing languages side by side in the same country’ (Blythe,2001a: 6). In the face of this reality it is suggested that ‘in fact everyone reallydoes prefer to speak in the language which identifies them with a particularcommunity’ (p. 6). The other example is in India, where one perspective is toview English in the following way: ‘English is now looked [upon] as an Indianlanguage. It’s no longer a foreign language. It’s a language, which we havegrown up with, we have twisted it. We speak it in our own way’ (Blythe,2001b: 19).

Furthermore, the local acceptance of English as a global language has led,for example, to a situation in which, among Indian youth, ‘English is not justthe unquestioned language of choice, but a badge of style and class’ (Blythe,2001a: 12) or in which, among Japanese youth, there is an ‘appetite for allthings western’ and ‘British and American [music] bands attract a massiveJapanese following, in spite of the linguistic divide [and] the teenage cults ofthe west are ever present in the local music scene’ (Blythe, 2001a: 15). In theseexamples, global English penetrates and becomes interwoven into localcontexts.

The second linguistic implication of glocalising trends is the tension, inspecific local contexts, between the use of English, on the one hand, and theuse of languages other than English, on the other. This should not be seen somuch as a conflict or polarity between the global and the local, but rather acomplementarity, albeit one that is in tension � an acknowledgement of theimportance of English as a major lingua franca, and an acceptance of otherlanguages as valid additional means of communication. This is indeed onedimension of Carr’s (2003) understanding of the tension between global andlocal: second- or third-generation immigrants may indeed find themselveshaving to operate both in English and in another language.

Once more, Europe provides an example of the tension. Phillipson (2003)acknowledges on the one hand the pull of globalising forces when he notesthat ‘[f]or the American ambassador to Denmark who claims that a multi-plicity of languages is thwarting the unification of Europe, the solution wouldbe for the EU to eliminate all languages other than English’ (p. 4). Herecognises, on the other hand, the counter-pull of localisation when he assertsthat ‘[i]t is unthinkable that any political leader in Europe would endorse sucha scenario. To do so would run counter to the endorsement of diversity that isenshrined in many key EU texts’ (p. 4).

A key aspect of understanding ‘glocal’ influence is, therefore, ‘diversity’.Glocalisation as a concept gives rise to several linguistic possibilities:

. It dismantles the ‘us�others’ dichotomy by recognising that the push ofglobalisation is exerting influence alongside the pull of localisation.

. It allows a move towards an ‘us�others’ reciprocity, at least theoretically.(In practice, the global infiltration of English (and its corollary theglobalisation of culture) makes absolute two-way reciprocity betweenEnglish and other languages impossible. The partners are not equal.)

164 Language and Intercultural Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

. It argues not for a conflict, but for a collaboration between the global andthe local. It is not a question of English versus other languages; it is aquestion of English and other languages. (Or, following Skutnabb-Kangas(2004), glocalisation potentially allows for languages to be learntadditively, as a supplement to L1, and not subtractively, deplacing orreplacing the L1.)

. It allows us to acknowledge the place of English on the one hand, andcelebrate languages other than English, on the other.

Most importantly, perhaps, glocalisation allows us to operate multilinguallyand multiculturally. Indeed, Lo Bianco et al. (1999) suggest that ‘activemulticultural societies/nations � where language education is highly valued� are better prepared for participation in global interculturalism on the worldstage’ (p. 1). The concept of glocalisation surely facilitates and promotes suchsocieties and nations. As such, dismantling, on a social level, the ‘us�others’dichotomy, and replacing it with an ‘us�others’ reciprocity, may be parallelledwith the creation, on a communicative level, of Lo Bianco et al.’s ‘third place’.

It would seem, however, that it will take much to challenge the monolingual(English) assumptions of English-dominant societies. As Phillipson (2003)notes, the Chief Executive Officers of 200 top global corporations are multi-lingual . . . that is, unless they happen to come from the USA or the UK. Tothese may be added Australia and New Zealand. Nevertheless, in a glocalcontext such ‘monolingual attitudes’ are unsustainable. The Nuffield Lan-guages Inquiry, a UK-based research project that set out to investigate andpredict the language needs of the UK over the next 20 years (Moys, 1998),argued in its final report (2000):

In a world where bilingualism and plurilingualism are commonplace,monolingualism implies inflexibility, insensitivity and arrogance. Muchthat is essential to our society, its health and its interests � includingeffective choice in policy, realisation of citizenship, effective overseaslinks and openness to the inventions of other cultures � will not beachieved in one language alone. (p. 14)

Indeed, ‘[e]vidence to the Inquiry revealed the hidden resentment that can bearoused by the blanket assumption by monolingual English speakers thatothers will always be prepared to speak English’ (p. 18).

Phillipson (2003) asserts that ‘[w]hat we are currently experiencing isunification of a global market, with English as one among several vibrantinternational languages, among them Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, and Japanese,though clearly none of these has the same status in globalization as English’ (p.71). Phillipson argues that ‘labelling English as the world’s lingua franca, or as‘‘the’’ language of the internet, is wishful thinking. Many languages are usedas lingua francas, and many languages are used on the internet, includingdemographically small ones. The status of English may well be challenged inthe future’ (p. 71). Evidence of this challenge may be found, for example, in theincreased uptake of learning Arabic or Mandarin in the US, although themotivation to learn each is different (Borger, 2006, 10 March; Gordon, 2006,22 March).

Moving Towards ‘Us�Others’ Reciprocity 165

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

If we accept that glocalisation means that the boundaries between the globaland the local are indeed ‘fluid and mercurial’, as Kraidy (2003) suggests, it isimpossible to predict exactly what the linguistic landscape will look like in 10,20 or 100 years. Although as a consequence of globalisation the vital place ofthe English language in world terms is in no immediate danger, glocal forcesindicate that the future position of English is ‘more complex and less certainthan some may assume’ (Graddol, 1997: 2). This is the social reality in whichwe find ourselves in a new millennium.

There is certainly convincing evidence to suggest that glocalisation isindeed the ‘new social influence’ by which individuals and societies will beshaped in the present century. What, then, are the issues that need to beseriously considered by those of us who are professionally involved withlanguage teaching and learning?

Conclusions and Implications for Language EducationBearing in mind Carr’s (2003) assertion that glocalisation defines both the

conflict and the interaction between different systems of belief (through which‘we’ and ‘others’ are compelled to interrelate) and Lo Bianco et al.’s (1999)‘third place’ (through which, from the perspective of language learning andintercultural communication, ‘we’ and ‘others’ may be brought together), thefollowing recommendations for language education may be drawn.

When working with students of English as an additional language twogoals are worthy of our attention:

(1) To help our students to reach the highest levels of communicativecompetence in English commensurate with their own personal goals andaspirations, and to do this not only in contextually and culturallyappropriate ways (for those who, for example, are learning English foruse in the English-speaking country in which they may be studying) butalso with recognition that many of these students may want to useEnglish in a variety of contexts other than their immediate one (for thosewho, for example, are learning English for use internationally).3 This hasimplications for issues such as resourcing and the production ofappropriate materials, but is an important goal.

(2) To help our students to appreciate the value of their own language andculture, and also (in mixed nationality classes) the value of the languagesand cultures of their fellow students. In this way, teaching the targetlanguage becomes ‘teaching learners how to make their first culturerelate to the target culture in a way which can free them from amonocultural view of the world . . . ’ (Liddicoat & Crozet 2000: 3). It maysometimes be appropriate to take some time out of teaching English toexplore with students some of the wider socio-political and socio-psychological issues such as the global�local problematic raised in thispaper.

166 Language and Intercultural Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

When working with L1 English-speaking students (or, for that matter, anystudents) who wish to learn another language two parallel goals are worthyof note:(3) To help our students to see that what they are doing in learning an L2 is

valuable and worthwhile, and to develop their ability to communicateeffectively in their chosen L2: to ‘know how to relate to otherness’ (Zarate,1993) � the essence, suggest Liddicoat and Crozet (2000), of interculturalcommunication. Cross-cultural sensitivity and skills in internationallanguages are suggested by the OECD (1996) as future requirements formany people, especially officials involved in external relations. Thepeople best placed to communicate flexibly and effectively with a rangeof diverse individuals will arguably have both linguistic skills andknowledge of and sensitivity to cultural differences (Watts, 1998).

(4) To help our students to critique the place of English in the world today,by recognising not only its value and importance but also its weaknessesand limitations (it may again be appropriate to explore some of theissues raised in this paper).

These goals, particularly 3 and 4, leave two important questions. Firstly, forwhat level of linguistic ability and competence should our students be aimingand what level should we be promoting? It is here that the theoreticalframeworks of communicative competence and intercultural language teach-ing may be more helpful than earlier frameworks and methodologies. Thecommunicative paradigm recognises not only that ‘near native speaker’competence is not our ultimate goal but also that communicative competenceis relative (Savignon, 1997). Phillipson’s (2003) observations, made in thecontext of learning English, are pertinent to all languages:

People learning foreign languages are not on a route towards pretendingto be native speakers. They need to be able to express themselveseffectively in English with people from anywhere in the world. Teachingshould build up this competence as rapidly and economically aspossible. Those who advocate English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) seekto legitimate a shift away from native speaker norms towards equippingpeople to function effectively as non-native speakers. (p. 166)

In any language we may be teaching our goal, in the context of communicativecompetence and ILT, is to equip our students to function effectively, bothlinguistically and interculturally, as non-native speakers, commensurate (aswas stated earlier) with their own personal goals and aspirations and with thecontexts in which (to the extent that they might know this) they are realisticallylikely to use the language they are learning.4

The second important question is this: for those learning a language otherthan English, which language should that be? Again, the choice most probablycomes down to students’ own personal goals and aspirations, which will beshaped both by their perceptions of which languages are ‘important’ and bythe geographical location in which they live. As Tonkin (2003) observes, ‘[i]nreality, most people learn languages because their social situation obliges themto. . . . [They learn] languages out of necessity � in the street, in the market, in

Moving Towards ‘Us�Others’ Reciprocity 167

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

a job, on visits to the neighbouring town’ (p. 152). As such, ‘from adevelopmental point of view it does not matter which language we teach.[Although o]f course, from a practical point of view it may matter a great deal’(Tonkin, 2003: 155).

A Personal NoteOn a personal note, the challenges and opportunities for languages

education presented by forces of glocalisation have particular relevance inone of settings in which I currently work. The decision was recently made todisband two established language departments, one having a special focus onteacher training and teaching English to newly arrived refugees and foreignimmigrants to New Zealand, and the other focusing on English for interna-tional students and community and international languages other thanEnglish. In their place it was decided to establish one new school whichwould encompass the breadth of work previously carried out in two separatesettings. The formation of this new ‘School of Language Studies’ provides anew challenge and fresh opportunity to deliver high-quality languageeducation in a truly diverse plurilingual and multicultural setting.

One particular programme of study has already been operating successfullyout of both former schools (a bachelors degree in international languages, withmajors in English as an additional language, Chinese, Japanese, German andSpanish). In this degree a strong emphasis has been placed on the develop-ment of high levels of communicative competence in the students’ chosenlanguage. In addition, all students are expected to take a first-year course,Speaking to the World, which confronts them with and asks them to criticallyreflect on the implications of the phenomenon of English as a global languageand the implications for languages other than English in that context.

It is to be hoped that the new school will indeed become a place whereplurilingualism and multiculturalism are seen as normative. From a moregeneral perspective, Liddicoat and Crozet (2000) argue that ‘language teachingnow needs to be seen more in the context of intercultural communication andpreparing learners to communicate outside their own cultural boundaries’(p. 3) � a notion that the influence of glocalisation facilitates. As Grin (2001)acknowledges, despite the assertion that English is worth learning ‘thepreservation of our quality of life in the long term suggests that what deservesour care and efforts is the promotion of linguistic diversity’ (pp. 75�76). It is tobe hoped that language educators, whatever language(s) they may teach, willrecognise the diverse linguistic and cultural challenges presented by glocalisa-tion and will rise to those challenges.

CorrespondenceAny correspondence should be directed to Martin East, School of Language

Studies, Unitec New Zealand (meast@unitec.ac.nz).

Notes1. It may be argued that a claim to link identity primarily to L1 is an over-

simplification. Skutnabb-Kangas (2004) acknowledges, on the one hand, the special

168 Language and Intercultural Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

significance of L1 to identity, but recognises, on the other, that people have‘multiple identities, often conflicting and contradictory, varying in salienceaccording to circumstances’ (p. 128). The notion of ‘multiple identities’ isexpounded by others (for example, May et al., 2004; Pennycook, 2001). May(2004) articulates a ‘widespread view’ that ‘language does not define us, and maynot be an important feature, or indeed even a necessary one, in the construction ofour identities, whether at the individual or collective levels’ (p. 39). This papertakes as its starting point, however, the notion that ‘[n]othing stays longer in oursouls than the language we inherit’ (Paulus Utsi, cited in Skutnabb-Kangas, 2004:132).

2. Carr acknowledges that in many respects globalisation is not a new socialphenomenon, although the pace of globalisation is accelerating.

3. It is hard to see the relevance, for example, in one English teacher’s lesson, forChinese speakers in Changzheng Middle School, that looked at how to use thetrain system in the UK (Blythe, 2001c: 14) � although to be fair this was only asnapshot of an entire lesson which may well have gone on to explore a wider rangeof language relevant to a variety of contexts.

4. I am grateful to one reviewer who, in the context of positively challenging mythinking at several points, noted the following additional communicative aims forL1 speakers of English: teaching English-L1 students (who are sometimes muchmore difficult to understand than L2-speakers of English) not only to speak so thatthey are understandable to others, but also how to speak effectively throughinterpreters.

References

Ammon, U. (2003) Global English and the Non-Native Speaker. In H. Tonkin (ed.),Language in the Twenty-first Century: Selected Papers of the Millennial Conferences of theCenter for Research and Documentation on World Language Problems, held at theUniversity of Hartford and Yale University (pp. 23�34). Philadelphia, PA: JohnBenjamins.

Bauman, Z. (1998) Globalization: The Human Consequences. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Blythe, R. (2001a) Beyond Babel Programme Transcript: Programme 2 � Culture. London:London Television Service.

Blythe, R. (2001b) Beyond Babel Programme Transcript: Programme 4 � Future. London:London Television Service.

Blythe, R. (2001c) Beyond Babel Programme Transcript: Programme 1 � Trade. London:London Television Service.

Borger, J. (2006) America in ‘critical need’ of Mandarin. The Guardian Weekly, 10 March.Bourdieu, P. (1982) Ce que parler veut dire: L’economie des echanges linguistiques. Paris:

Librairie Artheme Fayard.Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Trans. Gino Raymond and Matthew

Adamson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Bruthiaux, P. (2003) Contexts and trends for English as a global language. In H. Tonkin

(ed.) Language in the Twenty-First Century: Selected Papers of the Millennial Conferencesof the Center for Research and Documentation on World Language Problems, held at theUniversity of Hartford and Yale University (pp. 9�22). Philadelphia, PA: JohnBenjamins.

Cameron, D. (2002) Globalization and the teaching of ‘communication skills’. In D.Block and D. Cameron (eds) Globalization and Language Teaching (pp. 67�82). London:Routledge.

Carr, S.C. (2003) Social Psychology: Context, Communication and Culture. Milton: JohnWiley & Sons.

Duszak, A. (2002) Us and others: An introduction. In A. Duszak (ed.) Us and Others:Social Identities Across Languages, Discourses and Cultures (pp. 1�28). Philadelphia, PA:John Benjamins.

Moving Towards ‘Us�Others’ Reciprocity 169

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Fitzgerald, T.K. (1994) Culture and identity, community and survival: What is thecultural in multiculturalism? New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies 29(2),189�199.

Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Gordon, L. (2006) Interest in learning Arabic soars. Los Angeles Times, 22 March.Graddol, D. (1997) The Future of English? London: The British Council.Grin, F. (2001) English as economic value: Facts and fallacies. World Englishes 20 (1),

65�78.Harris, P.R. and Moran, R.T. (1991) Managing Cultural Differences: High Performance

Strategies for a New World of Business. Houston: Gulf.Kraidy, M.M. (2003) Glocalisation: An international communication framework? Journal

of International Communication 9 (2), 29�49.Kramsch, C. and Thorne, S. (2002) Foreign language learning as global communicative

practice. In D. Block and D. Cameron (eds) Globalization and Language Teaching (pp.83�100). London: Routledge.

Liddicoat, A. and Crozet, C. (eds) (2000) Teaching Languages, Teaching Cultures.Melbourne: Language Australia.

Lo Bianco, J., Liddicoat, A., and Crozet, C. (eds) (1999) Striving for the Third Place:Intercultural Competence Through Language Education. Melbourne: Language Australia.

May, S. (2004) Rethinking linguistic human rights: Answering questions of identity,essentialism and mobility. In D. Patrick and J. Freeland (eds) Language Rights andLanguage Survival: A Sociolinguistic Exploration (pp. 35�53). Manchester: St. Jerome.

May, S., Modood, T. and Squires, J. (eds) (2004) Ethnicity, Nationalism and MinorityRights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mowlana, H. (1994) Shapes of the future: International communication in the 21stcentury. Journal of International Communication 1 (1), 14�32.

Moys, A. (ed.) (1998) Where are we going with Languages? London: Nuffield Foundation.Naisbitt, J. (1982) Megatrends: Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives. New York:

Warner Books.Naisbitt, J. (1994) Global Paradox: The Bigger the World Economy, the More Powerful its

Smallest Players. New York: William Morrow and Company.Naisbitt, J. and Aburdene, P. (1990) Megatrends 2000: Ten New Directions for the 1990’s.

New York: William Morrow and Company.OECD. (1996) Globalisation: What Challenges and Opportunities for Government? on

www at http://www.oecd.org/puma/gvrnance/strat/pubs/glo96/foreword.htm.Accessed 1.3.2000.

Pennycook, A. (2001) Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Phillipson, R. (2003) English-only Europe? Challenging Language Policy. London:

Routledge.Pool, J. (1993) Linguistic exploitation. International Journal of the Sociology of Language

103, 31�55.Ritzer, G. (1993) The McDonaldization of Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Ritzer, G. (2004) The McDonaldization of Society: Revised New Century Edition. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Robertson, R. (1994) Globalisation or glocalisation? Journal of International Communica-

tion, 1 (1), 33�52.Savignon, S. (1997) Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice (2nd edn.).

New York: McGraw-Hill.Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2004) Do not cut my throat, let me live and die with my language.

A comment on English and other languages in relation to linguistic human rights.Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 3 (2), 127�134.

Tajfel, H. and Forgas, J. (1981) Social categorization: Cognitions, values and groups. In J.Forgas (ed.) Social Cognition: Perspectives on Everyday Understanding (pp. 113�140).London: Academic Press.

170 Language and Intercultural Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Nuffield Languages Inquiry (2000) Languages: The Next Generation. London: TheNuffield Foundation.

Tonkin, H. (2003) Why learn foreign languages? Thoughts for a new millennium. In H.Tonkin (ed.) Language in the Twenty-First Century: Selected Papers of the MillennialConferences of the Center for Research and Documentation on World Language Problems,held at the University of Hartford and Yale University (pp. 145�155). Philadelphia, PA:John Benjamins.

Watts, N. (1998) Language learning and global literacy. The New Zealand LanguageTeacher 24, 44�47.

Zarate, G. (1993) Representations de l’etranger et didactique des langues. Paris: Didier.

Moving Towards ‘Us�Others’ Reciprocity 171

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

13:

02 0

6 N

ovem

ber

2014