Upload
maxbanjo
View
141
Download
6
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
English in Diverse world contexts
The Linguistic imperialism of Robert Phillipson
1. Linguistic Imperialism
1.1 The spread of English
The stated aim of Phillipson’s 1992 book Linguistic Imperialism was to set out how
English became so dominant and why, and to examine the role ELT pedagogy had
in contributing to it becoming “the international language par excellence in which the
fate of most of the worlds millions is decided.” (Phillipson 1992 p.6) While many
writers had tackled the question before no one had done so from the type of critical,
socio-linguistic standpoint taken by Phillipson. Whereas for David Crystal, and other
commentators, the rise of English is a largely neutral phenomenon, achieved “by
repeatedly finding itself at the right place at the right time” (Crystal 1997, p.110) for
Phillipson, the spread of English is no happy accident and his book is no
dispassionate examination of the natural evolution of a language. According to
Phillipson the English language has been, and continues to be, propelled by the
deliberate manipulation of economic, political, intellectual and social forces in order
to “legitimate, effectuate and reproduce an unequal division of power and resources.”
(Phillipson 1992 p.47) and create a culture of what Phillipson calls, linguistic
imperialism.
For Phillipson the ELT industry and ELT pedagogy are not innocent bystanders in
the rise of English language hegemony but are complicit in a neo-colonial agenda
that he sees as driving English to its current position. He contends that the popular
view of the spread of English as ‘an incontrovertible boon’ is misplaced and that the
discourse that currently ties learning English to ‘progress and prosperity’ is in fact
Page 1
English in Diverse world contexts
‘scientifically fallacious’ (ibid p.8). While accepting that English is no longer imposed
by force as it was in colonial times he is deeply suspicious of the popular view that
the demand for English is governed by such benign forces as “the state of the
market (‘demand’) and force of argument (rational planning in light of the facts).” (ibid
p.8) For Phillipson imperialist control need no longer come from the barrel of a gun
and “the progression from one type of imperialist control to another parallels the way
power can be asserted by means of sticks, carrots and ideas” (ibid p.53) For
Phillipson the spread of English is still implicitly connected to the imperialist urges of
colonial times and recent ELT policy and practice has been deliberately directed
towards maintaining the domination of Western centre countries over those in the
developing periphery. “English serves to consolidate the interests of the powerful
globally and locally and to maintain an imbalanced exploitative world order, to
disenfranchise speakers of other languages.” (2008 p.6)
Far from the ideas of some commentators that the global spread of English “presents
us with unprecedented ideas for mutual understanding” (Crystal p.266) or that “the
world needs a global language and English is the best candidate” (Quirk, 1990
p.105) for Phillipson “the tension between English as an invasive, imperialist
language and the promises that it holds out is not straightforward.” and “arguments
in favour of expanding the use of English must be weighed against concern about
educational and social inequality deriving from continued use of English.” (2008
p.10) The question then is whether English will “continue to spread as a second
language the world over as a benevolent bonus or creeping cancer of modernity”
(ibid p.11) For Phillipson the answer is clear.
Page 2
English in Diverse world contexts
1.2 A definition of Linguistic Imperialism
According to Phillipson, linguistic imperialism “refers to a particular theory for
analysing relations between dominant and dominated cultures and specifically the
way English language learning has been promoted.” (ibid p.15) For Phillipson
language is one of many structures by which communities can be categorised and
discriminated against, similar to gender, age and race, and while language does not
in itself effect inequality it is “a construct exploited by politico-economic structures to
carry out their agenda of dominance.” (Canagarajah, p.41)
At the centre of Phillipson’s argument is the concept of ‘linguicism’ first defined by
Tove Skutnabb-Kangas as a form of “linguistically argued racism” (Skutnabb-
Kangas, 1988 p.13) Phillipson himself defines linguicism as ‘ideologies, structures
and practices which are used to legitimate, effectuate, and reproduce an unequal
division of power and resources (both material and immaterial) between groups
which are defined on the basis of language.” (1992 p.47). A practical example of
linguicism given by Phillipson would be the allocation of resources or materials to
one rather than another language or when a priority is given to one language for
teacher training, curriculum development or school timetabling. According to
Phillipson linguicism “refers exclusively to ideologies and structures where language
is the means for effecting or maintaining an unequal allocation of power and
resources.” (ibid, p.55)
Linguistic imperialism is a sub-form of linguicism, becoming manifest when “the
dominance of English is asserted and maintained by the establishment and
Page 3
English in Diverse world contexts
continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and
other languages.” (ibid p.47) Accordingly Phillipson sees the English language in and
of itself as neutral but its exploitation by colonial and neo-colonial powers to exert
and perpetuate their hegemony ultimately makes it culpable by association.
Phillipson follows Galtung’s theory of cultural imperialism dividing the world into a
centre, core English speaking countries, and its peripheries where English is either a
second or “international link language” (1992, p.17). Phillipson argues that this
relationship is essentially one of “structural and systemic inequality, in which the
political and economic hegemony of Western Anglophone powers is established or
maintained over scores of developing nations.” (Kachru et al The handbook of world
Englishes, p.257).
1.3 The role of English language teaching
For Phillipson the ELT establishment, and certain institutions in particular1, play a
clear role in supporting linguistic imperialism and he believes: “there is a very strong
case for claiming that ELT and the intellectual tradition behind it are neo-colonialist”.
(1992 p.72) He sees ELT as culpable for propagating and perpetuating a number of
pedagogic tenets that have been promoted not, as is commonly thought because
they are best practice, but in order to maintain the pre-eminent position of English
over other languages and to safeguard the interests of the centre nations. These
‘fallacies’, as they are referred to by Phillipson are:
The monolingual fallacy: that English is best taught without reference to the
learners native language
1 Particular opprobrium is reserved for the British Council
Page 4
English in Diverse world contexts
The native speaker fallacy: that the best teacher is a speaker from one of the
centre countries
The early start fallacy: that the earlier a language is learnt the better it is
mastered
The maximum exposure fallacy: the more English one comes into contact with
the better it is learnt
The subtractive fallacy: the less a student speaks other languages the better
their English will become
These fallacies are a part of what Phillipson terms the ‘professionalism’ and
‘anglocentricity’ of ELT, which he sees as legitimating methods, techniques and
procedures which are in the interests of the centre nations but which may be neither
appropriate for, nor in the interest of the periphery. According to Phillipson the ELT
industry is at fault for believing that the accepted methods, techniques and
procedures of current thinking are enough to understand the complexities of
language learning and for failing to critically analyse certain unsound foundations
that underpin it. For Phillipson “ELT professionalism excludes broader societal
issues, the prerequisites and consequences of ELT activity, from its professional
purview.” (ibid) and represents a mechanism for exerting control over centre
countries vested interests. By promoting these ‘myths’ ELT helps to ‘legitimate’ the
dominance of English by “rationalising activities and beliefs which contribute to the
structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages.” (ibid.) This
‘rationalising’ of beliefs raises a serious concern with Phillipson’s argument since it
leads very quickly to the conclusion that it is impossible for any outer or developing
Page 5
English in Diverse world contexts
circle writer to actually challenge his assertion that the spread of English is inherently
pernicious.
1.4 Hegemony
While many would be happy to accept Joseph Bisong’s claim that “those in the
Periphery who opt for education in English do so for pragmatic reasons to do with
maximising their chances of success in a multilingual and multicultural society”
(Bisong 1995 p.126) for Phillipson arguments of this kind are simply delusory. The
belief that learning English represents a free choice in periphery countries, driven by
market demand, is in fact merely another demonstration of the hegemonic nature of
the language and further proof of the neo-imperialist nature of English language
dominance. While he accepts that arguments for the ‘neutral’ or ‘non-political’ nature
of English language teaching may seem ‘intuitively commonsensical’ this, he
believes, is “only in the Gramscian sense of being based on beliefs which reflect the
dominant ideology. Hegemonic ideas tend to be internalized by the dominated, even
though they are not objectively in their interest.” (ibid. p.8) Such a stance, according
to Bisong, is simply ‘patronising’ and “carries the implication that users of [periphery
languages] do not know what is in their interest.” (Bisong p.131)
If linguistic imperialism is to be sufficient to explain the global spread of English,
rather than simply a contributing factor in it, then Phillipson relies heavily on the
claim that the ‘normalisation’ and acceptance of English are actually a reflection of its
current hegemony. Phillipson refers to Raymond Williams definition of hegemony as
“a set of meanings and values which as they are experienced as practices appear as
reciprocally confirming.” (1992 p.72) According to Phillipson English has attained a
Page 6
English in Diverse world contexts
status whereby its assumed position is now taken for granted and its dominant role
in the world “is accepted as the natural state of affairs rather than a choice which
reflects particular interests.” (1992, p. 72) This acceptance for Phillipson is entirely
misplaced. As such Bisong’s claim to a freedom of choice is, for Phillipson no such
thing but rather a manifestation of the dangerous control English and ELT has taken
over the minds of the dominated. “The pre-eminence of English is legitimated as
being a ‘common sense’ social fact, thus concealing whose interests are being
served by the dominant ideology and dominant professional practice.” (1992 p.76)
Maintaining such a stance seemingly leaves Phillipson in the unfortunate position of
having to dismiss all claims to independent decision making on the part of English
language learners and educators the world over. As a result he has often been
accused of dismissing the role of periphery nations and even of peddling his own
imperialist agenda. Whatever side he takes ultimately Phillipson can only adopt the
perspective of the centre2 and, aside from accusations that he suffers from post-
colonial guilt (see Rajagopalan 1999) it is difficult for him to counter the accusation
that his arguments are inherently patronising. According to Brutt-Griffler, “the
conceptual lens of linguistic imperialism obscures the role of Africans, Asians and
other peoples of the world as active agents in the process of creation of world
English.” (Brutt-Griffler p.107) and other commentators have argued that what may
initially seem like a noble effort to save endangered languages and preserve
linguistic diversity could, by another token, be seen as “a subtle kind of manipulation,
2 Phillipson himself points out that “There is a sense in which we are inescapably committed to the ethnocentricity of our own world view, however much insight and understanding we have of other cultures.” (Phillipson, p.48.) It is not entirely clear though that Phillipson accepts that his view can only ever be that of an Oxford educated, white male from a former colonial power, with all the emotional and intellectual baggage that accompanies this.
Page 7
English in Diverse world contexts
even imperialism, stemming from an arbitrary western intellectual agenda.” (Hellinger
2005, p.25.) Certainly it is difficult for Phillipson to deny (and at times he seems
uncomfortably aware) that his work by necessity stems from the “same competitive,
progress oriented western paradigm” that portrays indigenous people as “weak,
helpless, disadvantaged, exploited and indigenous” (Hellinger, 2005 p.25)
2. Criticisms of Phillipson
2.1 The world is too complex
Perhaps the most common criticism of Phillipson’s work is that in trying to present a
macroscopic treatment of the issue he ultimately presents a picture that is too
remote, too simple and too theoretical to cover the complexities that underlie each
individual context. Suresh Canagarajah takes issue with Phillipson’s remoteness,
claiming his perspective is “too impersonal and global... missing the individual, the
local, the particular.” (Canagarajah, p.41) The result for Canagarajah is that there “is
little sense of the classroom” with Phillipson failing to show “how linguistic
inequalities are effected, propagated, or played out in instructional contexts in the
periphery.” (ibid, p.42) In adopting such an impersonal perspective Phillipson is
unable to consider how, in fact, English could be adopted to empower local
communities and resist the influence of the centre. Adopting a more micro-societal
perspective would, according to Canagarajah, not only allow Phillipson to take
account of the “lived culture and everyday experience of periphery communities [but
would] also help qualify some of his claims.” (ibid, p.42) Phillipson’s failure to engage
on this more detailed level leaves him open to the accusation that that his arguments
“show a failure to appreciate fully the complexities of the situation” (Bisong, p.131).
Page 8
English in Diverse world contexts
While these criticisms may have some justification they miss-place what Phillipson is
trying to achieve, which as Phillipson clearly states at the beginning of Linguistic
Imperialism is to situate ELT in “a macro-societal theoretical perspective” (Phillipson
1992 p.2) Indeed it is Phillipson’s contention that his own analysis can “probe
beyond individual experience and reflection to the processes and structures which
are in operation at the international, national, group and personal levels.” (My italics
1992 p.2)Accepting that Phillipson is trying to examine a global phenomenon it
seems unreasonable to expect him to be too concerned with the everyday realities of
English teaching and learning in each and every context. However, Canagarajah’s
criticisms do point to the sweeping way in which Phillipson considers all learners in
periphery countries as essentially the same which, if he is to deny them their own
voice, is a dangerous thing to do.
2.2 Colonial language policy and historical accuracy
While several early commentators singled out smaller problems with Phillipson’s
work other writers have since questioned the validity and historical accuracy of
Phillipson’s underlying premise. Brutt-Griffler in World Englishes takes issue with
whether ‘linguistic imperialism’ is even a useful concept, contesting that: “for
linguistic imperialism to be a consistent explanatory framework, English must have
developed as the product of a conscious policy developed and put into effect during
the colonial epoch.” (p.29) and this, she concludes did not exist. Brutt-Griffler points
to the paucity of historical and empirical evidence provided by Phillipson and
concludes that “rather than a detailed empirical study of the question Phillipson tries
to substantiate the requisites of a linguistic imperialist policy through repeated
Page 9
English in Diverse world contexts
assertion of their presence” (ibid. p.30) This impression was also had by a group of
graduate students tackling the book who found that “It seemed to us that the author
was more concerned with imposing his views, which we were to accept on faith and
not on the basis of evidence that would allow us to draw our own conclusions.”
(Berns et al p.275) After an extensive review of colonial language policy Brutt-Griffler
takes issue with Phillipson to the extent that she is prepared put forward the quite
contrary idea that: “rather than a unidirectional process carried out from an imperial
centre, the spread of English involved a contested terrain in which English was not
unilaterally imposed on passive subjects, but wrested from an unwilling imperial
authority as part of the struggle by them against colonialism.” (ibid. p.31)
Other commentators have also noted that they can find no real evidence that the
spread of English was related to a clear language policy. Bernard Spolsky points out
that if any were to be found “then it would be an outstanding example of the success
of a language policy” (Spolsky, 2004, p.80) but after some reflection concludes
simply “that there is no evidence for this claim” (ibid, p.90). Others have questioned
the historical accuracy of Phillipson’s interpretation of events at the Makerere
conference, an event to which Phillipson refers to as “undoubtedly the most
important landmark of the period of ELT expansion” (Phillipson 1992, p.66) and from
which he claims the five tenets/ fallacies of ELT, referred to earlier, came. In his
review of linguistic imperialism Alan Davies wonders where Phillipson took the tenets
from before concluding that they do not in fact represent a true reflection of the
findings of the conference. That the 5 tenets / fallacies exist and have held sway in
ELT for some time is not in question but, as Davies notes this type of factual
inaccuracy points to Phillipson’s determinism and perhaps suggests an attempt to
Page 10
English in Diverse world contexts
institutionalise a more naturally occurring phenomenon. This has enabled opponents
such as Davies (1994), Spolsky (2004) and others to feel able to dismiss Phillipson’s
work as a ‘conspiracy’ theory.
2.3 Hyperbole and post-colonial guilt
Although not a direct criticism of his overall theory Phillipson has done little to
encourage reasonable debate about his work and one reason it is sometimes
dismissed is because of his occasionally forthright approach. His often hyperbolic
language3 and tendency towards the extreme4 leave him open to the accusation that
his work amounts to little more than a “hotchpotch of political innuendo.” (Crystal
1999 p.421) And the sometimes polemical nature of his writing means that, whatever
truth there may be in the view that there is a correlation between linguistic and
political hierarchy, his case may be “blown by its overstatement” (Crystal in
Seidlhofer p.68)
In revisiting linguistic imperialism Margie Berns et al report that they spent
considerable time sorting through their negative reactions “trying to understand why
even those among us most likely to be in sympathy with his position were offended
by his tone and as a result distracted from the story he wanted to tell.” (Berns et al
1998 p.274) In some ways this may seem unfortunate and irrelevant but Phillipson’s
3 At various times he refers to English as a ‘lingua Frankensteina’, describing it as a ‘killer language’ and accusing it of causing ‘linguistic genocide’.
4 “Monolingualism is an illness, a disease which should be eradicated as soon as possible, because it is dangerous for world peace” Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson 1989 p.469)
Page 11
English in Diverse world contexts
apparent refusal to engage critically with subsequent debate is a significant
shortcoming in his work and points to an underlying concern about his intentions.
This is compounded by Phillipson’s apparent awareness of the fact that some of the
language of Linguistic Imperialism is not best suited to reasonable dialogue. On
being asked why a later work was less confrontational in its outlook than linguistic
Imperialism Phillipson responded: “I feared that if started waving around labels like
linguistic imperialism early on, then I would not enter into dialogue with the policy-
makers who might be frightened off by that sort of terminology.” (Phillipson and
Karmani 2005 p.248)
While such criticism may not impact directly on his central thesis it does point to a
shortcoming in his work which is its overall entrenched negativity and lack of a
suggested way forward. Phillipson is happy to denounce the spread of English (and
its accompanying culture) in the strongest possible terms and yet is either not
inclined or unable to suggest a way forward. “While Phillipson’s concerns are
important, they still seem to leave us with the question of what to do pedagogically
with English.” (Pennycook, 1994, p.308)
3. English in a global age
3.1 Alternatives to Phillipson
Since Linguistic Imperialism appeared several other writers, applied linguists and
ELT practitioners have speculated on the future of English or have directly taken up
the challenge put down by Phillipson as to how “ELT can contribute constructively to
greater linguistic and social equality” (Phillipson, 1992, p.319) I shall now look briefly
Page 12
English in Diverse world contexts
at the ideas of those who have tackled Phillipson most directly or who have done
most to take forward the issues that arose his work. I refer to David Crystal first as,
although he does not respond to Phillipson’s challenge and is not particularly
connected to the field of ELT, his position demonstrates the type of complacency
about the role of English in the world that so infuriates Phillipson.
3.1 David Crystal: World Standard Spoken English
David Crystal’s position is perhaps the one furthest from that of Phillipson and I refer
to it here as it is the position which most provokes his ire. In a slightly bad-tempered
review of Crystal’s English as a global language Phillipson took Crystal to task for
being both “Eurocentric “ and “triumphalist” and for celebrating the rise of English
while failing to recognise or take seriously the negative effects of its spread. While
Phillipson’s criticism is a little harsh, Crystal does indicate an ambivalence to the
spread of English claiming, “it is not possible to identify cause and effect ... we can
only point to the emergence of a climate of largely unspoken opinion which had
made English the natural choice for progress.” (Crystal , 1997, p.75)
While Crystal acknowledges that there are or will be ‘new Englishes’ it is not clear
that he sees this, in the same way as Braj Kachru and other pluralists. For Crystal
the current varieties of English are simply those native speaking countries and the
most obvious example of a ‘new’ English to Crystal is the difference between
American and British dialects. Although Crystal recognises that international varieties
of English “express national identities and are a way of reducing the conflict between
intelligibility and identity” (Crystal, p.134) he does not see the proliferation of English
as a politicised issue, somewhat trivially likening new Englishes to “the dialects we
Page 13
English in Diverse world contexts
recognise within our own country.” (Crystal p.133)5 Ultimately Crystal expects to see
the rise of what he calls ‘World Standard Spoken English’ (WSSE), but it seems he
thinks WSSE will be merely a form of American English that will sit comfortably next
to a speaker’s native language. For Crystal it is a straightforward, win-win situation
with no political or ideological baggage: “The concept of WSSE does not replace a
national dialect: it supplements it. [People] have a dialect in which they can continue
to express their national identity, and they have a dialect in which can guarantee
international intelligibility, when they need it. People do not need to give up their
national linguistic identities just because they are going to an international meeting. ”
(Crystal p.138-9)
A polite view of the position would be that it sees English somehow remotely, as
divorced from social context, representing an uncritical acceptance of English as part
of a globalised world, and for some this would be sufficient criticism of the position.
Crystal’s type of position sees the diffusion of English as natural and ultimately
positive, stressing an agents’ choice in adopting English and pointing to its
usefulness in a globalised world.
3.2 Braj Kachru vs Randolph Quirk: Institutionalised English(es)
Although now something of an umbrella term ‘world Englishes’ was a term originally
coined by Bradj Kachru who classified certain types of English using the analogy of
three concentric circles. Kachru’s position and that of those who have followed his
lead is characterised by an underlying philosophy that argues for pluricentralism and
the recognition of multifarious Englishes. At its core is the belief that English “now
5 Admittedly Crystal is writing a popular book for the mass market.
Page 14
English in Diverse world contexts
belongs to those who use it as their first language, and to those who use it as an
additional language, whether in its standard form or in its localised forms.” (Kachru
and Smith 1985, p.210) In contrast to Phillipson’s insistence that possession of
English will always be a source of division between western neo-colonialists and the
English language user on whom the language is imposed, Kachru’s ideas emphasis
the “WE-ness’, and not the dichotomy between us and them (the native and non-
native users).” (Kachru 1992, p.2)
Kachru’s insistence on recognition of the varieties of English was seen to prompt
Randolph Quirk to write a celebrated paper denouncing what he saw as a deliberate
but woefully misguided attempt to undermine the standard of English. In “Language
varieties and standard English” Quirk argued that any suggestion that there could be
anything other than native and non-native varieties of English would be extremely
damaging and dismissed the idea out of hand, suggesting that “the implications for
attempting the institutionalisation of non-native varieties of any language are too
obvious to mention.” (Quirk, 1990 p.5). For Quirk the idea that there could be
tolerance of linguistic pluralism was “quite horrendous” (ibid, p.8). Although only 20
years old Quirk’s paper already seems quaint and dated and perhaps typifies the
type of linguistic chauvinism that Phillipson was so at pains to attack. Kachru’s notion
of Englishes is now commonly accepted and large volumes detailing and recording
the varieties and differences of Englishes multiply by the year.
3.4 Alastair Pennycook: Critical pedagogies
Pennycook’s position takes on from where Phillipson left off, largely accepting most
of Phillipson’s assertions about the role of imperialism in language spread, but
Page 15
English in Diverse world contexts
proposing a way forward based on ‘critical pedagogies’. Pennycook readily accepts
that centre countries have promoted English to their own ends in order to “protect
and promote capitalist interests” (Pennycook, 1994, p.22) and he also accepts that
ELT has played a role in “helping to legitimate the contemporary capitalist order.”
(1994, p.24) Where Pennycook differs from Phillipson is that he does not accept that
English and ELT need be a tool of neo-colonialist empire and he would rather see
‘critical English language educators’ using English to create “a critical, transformative
and listening critical pedagogy” that will create, what Pennycook calls “counter-
discourses” and “insurgent knowledges” (Pennycook, 1994, p.326).
For Pennycook all education is essentially political and schools are “cultural and
political arenas where different cultural, ideological social forms are constantly in
struggle.” (Pennycook 1994, p.297) For Pennycook then the responsibility is that of
the educator to help the learner critically engage with the language in order to ‘write
back’ against the colonial oppressor. For Pennycook it is essential that learners
have access to a standard form on English in order that “they have access to those
forms of the language that are of particular significance in significant discourses.” but
they need to be aware that “those forms represent only one set of particular
possibilities” (Pennycook, 1994, p.316) For Pennycook the learner should be
encouraged to ‘break’ the language in order to create new possibilities and find ways
of using the language that meets their needs so that “they can claim and negotiate a
voice in English”. (Pennycook, 1994. P.318)
3.4 Canagarajah: Appropriating discourse
Page 16
English in Diverse world contexts
In line with his criticisms of Phillipson it is Canagarajah’s aim to go beyond, what he
refers to, as the ‘stereotypical’ and simplistic stances of: ‘English – good’, ‘English –
bad’, and instead re-position the debate within it’s real and lived social context in
order to “reflect on the diverse interests and motivations of individuals” and take
account of “the creative processes of linguistic meditation, interaction, and fusion
that take place in social life” (Canagarajah, 1999, p.3) For Canagarajah language
learning is ideological and as such can be used to engage and negotiate with
agencies of power. In a similar vein to Kachru, Canagarajah sees English as
becoming pluralized and varied with standard English “being infused with diverse
alternate grammars and conventions” in order to “take ideological resistance into the
very heart of English.” (ibid p.175)
For Canagarajah there should be a ‘third’ way , an approach to teaching and learning
that acknowledges the imperialist roots of ELT and neither rejects nor accepts it
wholesale but which allows learners to “appropriate the language in their own terms,
according to their needs, values and aspirations.” (Canagarajah, 1999 p.176)
According to Canagarajah learners do not have to simply reproduce the language of
the imperialist oppressor while accepting the values imported with it but can turn the
language to their own needs thus making themselves ‘insiders’. By taking the
language and making it their own language learners can “reposition themselves to
use English “not as slaves, but as agents; to use English not mechanically and
diffidently, but creatively and critically” (ibid p.176)
4. Conclusion
Page 17
English in Diverse world contexts
Whatever one’s opinion about Linguistic Imperialism it is now accepted that it
opened up debate about the socio-linguistic and ethical impact of the spread of
English. As Henry Widdowson and others have pointed out Phillipson’s work
“initiated debate and even those who opposed his views felt obliged to look more
critically into the issues it raised in such a provocative fashion.” (Widdowson, 2005,
p.362) Although similar concerns had been aired previously in the field of socio-
linguistics Phillipson brought the discussion to a much broader audience and
specifically that of ELT where “his open anti-imperialist stance starkly uncovered
English teaching agents’ complacency about the divisive effect of their policies and
the alienation that colonial attitudes have engendered.” (Holborrow, 1999, p.75-76)
Since 1992, debate about linguistic imperialism has been subsumed into a much
broader discussion about ‘global’, ‘world’ or ‘international’ English(es), with heated
discussion centring on issues of language rights and language ‘ownership’ and the
role and status of regional varieties alongside discussions about whose standards
and norms should apply. Phillipson himself now focuses almost solely on issues of
linguistic human rights, moving his focus from the former colonial empire to the EU
and away from the broader debates being pursued by the likes of Pennycook and
Canagarajah. It is tempting to suggest that Phillipson’s main interest in English now
is in attempting to minimise its use.
Another outcome of Phillipson’s work has been to raise awareness of the importance
of the role and agency of speakers from the periphery in the development of English.
Phillipson’s insistence on the hegemony of English ultimately stripped them of
agency and, in a sense it was a backlash against Phillipson by Canagarajah and
Page 18
English in Diverse world contexts
others that led to a far greater acceptance of the role of non-native speakers and
teachers in forming the future of English. In contemporary debates, speakers of
World Englishes are no longer portrayed as “helpless and passive victims of some
international conspiracy of linguistic imperialism but active participants who use
English for their own ends, and in the process actively contribute to the development
and spread of World Englishes.” (Hung, 2009, p.44) In the contemporary global
world English users have access to English language resources from both the centre
and the periphery and thus “in its emerging role as a world language, English has no
native speakers.” (Rajagopalan, 2004 p.112)
Phillipson’s work, along with that of Pennycook, also helped create a greater
awareness of the importance of positioning English within a much broader global
economic picture than had previously been the case. Rather than seeing it as a
subject sealed off from the world, whose focus is on the best and most expedient
way of acquiring a language; ELT practitioners can now look to develop a “linguistics
that treats human agency, contextuality, diversity, indeterminacy, and multimodality
as the norm.” (Canagarajah, 2007, p.98) Likewise scholars are moving away from
Phillipson’s conception of a single monolithic ‘English’ that seeks to bully and
dominate other languages considering it “less as a discreet object – even with its
variations – that can be taught only in its presence, and rather to deal with English as
multilingual, as a language always in translation, as a language always under
negotiation.” (Pennycook, 2008)
Page 19
English in Diverse world contexts
Bibliography
Brutt - Griffler, J. (2002) World English: AStudy of Its Development . Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Canagarajah, S. (1999) Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching,
Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Canagarajah, S. (1999b) On EFL teachers, awareness and agency. ELT Journal
53(3) 207-214.
Canagarajah, S. (2007) ‘The ecology of global English’, International Multilingual
Research Journal, 1 (2): 89–100.
Crystal, D. (1997) English as a Global Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Crystal, D (2000) Review. “On Trying to be Crystal-Clear: a response to Phillipson”,
Applied Linguistics 21/3 415-423.
Davies, A. (1996) Review article: Ironising the myth of linguicism. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development 17(6), 485–96.
Graddol, D. (1997) The Future of English? London: The British Council.
Graddol, D. (2006) English Next: Why Global English May Mean the End of ‘English
as a Foreign Language’, London: British Council.
Holborrow, M. (1993) "Review Article: Linguistic Imperialism". ELT Journal 47/4
358-360.
Page 20
English in Diverse world contexts
Holborrow, M. (1999) The politics of English: a Marxist view of language, Sage
publications
Kachru, B. (1986) The Alchemy of English. The Spread, Function and Models of
Non-native Englishes. Oxford a.o.: Pergamon.
Kachru, B. (1992) ‘World Englishes: approaches, issues and resources’, Language
Teaching, 25: 1–14.
Pennycook, A. (1994) The Cultural Politics of English as International Language,
London: Longman.
Pennycook, A. (2003) “Beyond homogeny and heterogeny: English as a global and
worldly language.” In C. Mair (Ed) The Cultural Politics of English. Amsterdam:
Rodopi
Pennycook, A. (2008) ‘English as a language always in translation’, European
Journal of English Studies, 12 (1):13–47.
Pennycook, A. (2010) ‘The future of Englishes: One many or none? In Handbook of
world Englishes ed. Kirkpatrick, Routledge
Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism . Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, R (1999a) "Linguistic Imperialism Re-Visited - or Reinvented. A
Rejoinder to a Review Essay". International Journal of Applied Linguistics 9/1. 135-7.
Phillipson, R. (1999b) Voice in global English: Unheard chords in Crystal loud and
clear. Review of David Crystal, English as a Global Language, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Applied Linguistics 20/2: 265-276.
Phillipson, R (2008) ‘The linguistic imperialism of neoliberal empire’, Critical Inquiry
in Language Studies, 5 (1):1–43.
Quirk, R. (1990) ‘Language varieties and standard language’ English Today 6 ( 1 ):
3 – 10 .
Page 21
English in Diverse world contexts
Rajagopalan, K (1999) "Of EFL Teachers, Conscience and Cowardice. " ELT
Journal 53/3 200-206.
Rajagopalan, K. (2004) ‘The concept of “World English” and its implications for
ELT’, ELT Journal, 58 (2): 111–17.
Seidlhofer, B (2002) “Habeas corpus and divide et impera: Global English and
applied linguistics”. In K Spelman Miller and P. Thompson (eds) Unity and Diversity
in Language use. London: Continuum.
Spolsky, B (2004) Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H (2005) ‘Correspondence’, ELTJ, 59 (4) p.362
Page 22