Linguistic Imperialism ??? Do you believe

[ssean]

Currently doing a master in language teaching and for one of the papers I must prepare something about linguistic imperialism. As I understand it, linguistic imperialism is suggesting that the spread of English language teaching has as a secondary effect, the spread of English culture and values.

This secondary effect undermines the local culture and will eventually supplant it, so therefore as teachers we are the modern day version of the conquistadors. By the nature of our profession we are working to the detriment of local culture and supporting the existing oligarchy.

Does this seem credible to you, or is the idea of linguistic imperialism to veiled in the language of neo-Marxists to take seriously.

Cheers

[womblingfree]

There's an extensive thread on this over at the Japan forum.

Here's the potted version!

"In our times eikaiwa is a unique example of cultural and psychological domination of the mind in which the ELT profession, by design, participated and perhaps continues to participate. The major points of eikaiwa are:

1. it involves emotional attachment to and obsessive infatuation with Western, especially American, culture (Tsuda 1992: 32);

2. it equates the ideal speaking partners with a white middle class American (Lummis 1976: 10);

3. it elevates a particular type of native speaker position of cultural superiority and cultivates specific attitudes toward the Caucasian race in general;

4. it represents the ideology and the structure of the subculture, which is racist (Lummis 1976: 7)

5. It represents the idea of the native speaker, which in Lummiss's view (1976: 7), is mostly fraud; and

6. its use of the term 'native speaker' is exploited by business-oriented language schools for financial exploitation."

I don't understand the idea of a native speaker as fraud thing. Can someone explain it to me?

I think what he's referring to here is the notion that there is a specific spoken English which defines the language.

Within every NS country, the UK, US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada (Kachru calls these the Inner Circle), there are hundreds, if not thousands of variations. These variations are wide ranging but universlly accepted within native speaking countries. World variation is not so readily accepted within NS countries.

Around the world English is spoken by many more people than it is in NS countries. Either in what Kachru calls the the Outer Circle where English is the official language or has become institutionalised and where standards are developing. Or in the Expanding Circle, such as Japan, where standards have been set by speakers of native countries.

So then the idea that the promotion of middle-class Americans in any way represents a 'norm' of English could be considered a fraud.

Could someone give a succinct definition of "linguistic imperialism". Is it the doctrine of making everyone learn English? If it is then governments who promoted it have shot themselves in the foot. It means those countries are creating societies around the world who are bi- or multi-lingual whilst their own remain monolingual. People living their are therefore lacking one skill of their 'imperial subjects'.

“A working definition of English linguistic imperialism is that the dominance of English is asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstruction of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages.” (Phillipson 1992: 47)

Although Phillipson is highly controversial he has nevertheless sparked a heated debate which hasn't stopped rolling for the last fourteen years.

Your point about monolingualism in NS countries is absolutely correct. NS countries are increasingly finding themselves disadvantaged by having monolingual populations in a world where multilingualism is the norm. this will only get worse with time.

Also the methods of language education which are still being used in eikaiwa and the British Council for example are still based on ageing colonial notions, even with the introduction of CLT.

If NS countries don't confront the changing needs for language education then they'll find themselve surplus to requirements in the years ahead.

“A working definition of English linguistic imperialism is that the dominance of English is asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstruction of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages.” (Phillipson 1992: 47)

I do find I get a little tired of the neo-Marxist view inherit in "critical discourse" approaches both to linguistics and applied linguistics. I think there is just too much of an a priori agenda in these fields of study. That is, they have already decided what they believe about the world and then just go about "proving it." Within neo-Marxist philosophies and orientations to branches of study such as sociology and linguistics, "culture" is inherently evil -- a force for supression, a means of constituting "otherness." The classic Marxist view was that oppression was imposed from "above" while in neo-Marxist interpretations oppression is self-perpetuating via learned behavior patterns of the oppressed.

While there is certainly a measure of truth in such views, I find them a poor starting point for objective research.

Yeah ok but just because the term native speaker becomes problematic in select gray areas doesn't negate the fact that some people are clearly native speakers of English and some clearly are not

Whilst people from native speaking countries are quite obviously native speakers there are millions of English speakers speaking local varieties of English such as Singlish or Nigerian English or Indian English or pidgins and creoles. How relevant is the concept of 'native English' to a Japanese businessman who deals primarily with Singapore?

If such a thing as a native speaker does not exist, why is that that I, as a native speaker of English, can almost always tell if someone else is or is not one?

But you're comparing other speakers to your own concept of English. If a native speaker meets a person from another part of their country with a heavy regional dialect there is never an assumption that person cannot speak English, or is making mistakes. All they are doing is using local dialect. The same courtesy is rarely given to people who speak English as a second language whose dialect may be just as relevant but because it is non native is considered incorrect.

no matter how good an English as a second language speaker is at English, or how poorly a native speaker uses English, they will each make different kinds of errors and constructions. I don't think variation among different kinds of English can be said to render the whole idea of native speakers meaningless.

No certainly not meaningless but the notion of the ownership of English needs to be addressed. There are so many different varieties all over the wold that it is just nonsensical to try and promote 'native English' in a country which has been speaking English for decades, if not centuries, and where it has developed along its own cultural and localised lines.

I get a kick out of listening to those who toss such pretentious terms around without giving a second thought to the fact that if what they're saying is really true, then they're definitely part of the problem by continuing to promote "linguistic imperialism" and taking jobs away from local employees.

The counterpoint to linguistic imperialism is:

"Speech communities are not the passive recipients of language policy that they are often implicitly assumed to be. They should not be conceived as victims on whom language policy-making authorities codify prefabricated plans. Rather, they are active shapers of the language policy environment who at least codetermine the context and at the most seize the initiative from the institutional planners…"
(cf. Hornberger, 1997, quoted from Brutt-Griffler, 2002:63)

I personally think that while the English language spread and its teaching policies have been shaped by colonialism and imperialism, (its just a historical fact), it's ultimately the communities themselves that shape the kind of language education they get.

That's why I think that if current Western ELT methods aren't modernised they'll be pretty much obsolete as countries in Asia and elswhere will just develop their own methods more suited to the modern world that's relevant to them.

One last quote:

“It is one thing to give an account of what happened in the past and in the process expose the shabby motives of the principal actors, be they individuals or governments; it is quite another to maintain that current practice is a continuation of the policies of the past.” (Bisong, 1994: 127)

I'd pretty much go along with that. Current Western language set ups may be a result of past policies (and so in need of revision) but that's not to say that there is a conspiracy nowadays to enforce English and to 'civilise and Christianise' other countries. At least I hope there's not!

[tigertiger]

too little time to do more than give pointers but see also writing by

Alistair Patterson
Yukio Tsuda
Robert Philipson and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas
Jean D'Souza
Ryuko Kubota
Marc Deniere

Once you get passed the markist leanings, there is evidence of language imperialism that links to political and economic imperialism.

There is also the dominance of English as the language of the social elite in many developing countries. This elitism (these elitists) will ensure that the status quo in maintained. Rather like the ruling classes of England could all speak/read/write in latin a few hundred years ago.

In the same way that latin used to be the lingua franca of the worlds leading power, it is also possible that the day will come when English is also a 'used to be' language.

[metal56]

Currently doing a master in language teaching and for one of the papers I must prepare something about linguistic imperialism. As I understand it, linguistic imperialism is suggesting that the spread of English language teaching has as a secondary effect, the spread of English culture and values.


Cheers

As I understand it, linguistic imperialism is suggesting that the spread of English language teaching has as a secondary effect, the spread of English culture and values.

The spread of American, British, and other English-speaking region's values more like. But, tell me, what is culturally British in a modern Britain?

[Sally Olsen]

Perhaps you also have to think of how the language is constructed and how that influences people. It seems that English is very linear and focuses thought in that way. Certainly Academic writing is very prescribed with an essay format of saying what you are going to say, saying it and saying what you said. There are also formats for business letters and on and on. These limit what you say and how you say it and also you free you to say what you want to say. They are so different from how people in the countries I have visited talk or behave or want to write to fit in their culture. They find our essay format childish and offensive because it seems to indicate that the professor doesn't know much. They find satire very confusing and the penchant for younger people to downgrade everything or use profane language confusing, not to mention slang and idioms. As I eavesdrop on conversations of university students on the bus, I wonder how the foreign students ever cope. They say that they have to leave their Japanese, Chinese, Greenlandic, Mongolian selves behind and form a new personality to cope in this new situation. Just to call me Sally is stressful for most of them as I am 63 and most of my friends and students are younger. I always felt that as I teacher I had an enormous effect on my students (not boasting that I was a great teacher or anything) but you have control of 25 to 80 people in a room for a certain period of time and impose your standards whether you think you are or not. I often said that I wanted my students to understand what it would be like if they went to Canada and participated in a class there if they complained that I wasn't doing something the Greenlandic way or the Japanese way. Just a small example - when I taught the word, "Shout" in Japan, I shouted and two young students quit my class for awhile because it was too stressful for them to have such emotions expressed. So yes, we bring all our former learning to our job and to the students and it is not their culture or experience. Sometime it will have a negative effect and destroy what they have. We will also be influenced by having lived in their culture and participated. I certainly find that my friends who have travelled are more cosmopolitan and much more understanding of others than those who have lived in my hometown all their lives. I don't think though that you can stop this influence now with all the chances that people have to participate in a global culture and I think overall the effects are probably beneficial to everyone. It is not a one way street and students are people who can reject what they don't like, especially if we tell them what we are promoting and value so it is not so implicit.

[lolwhites]

In the same way that latin used to be the lingua franca of the worlds leading power, it is also possible that the day will come when English is also a 'used to be' language.

Latin remained a lingua franca among the educated classes long after the Roman Empire had fallen, and probably wasn't associated in peoples' minds with the owning of slaves, gladatorial combat and throwing prisoners to the lions. Likewise, I expect that as English becomes more internationalised it will become more divorced from the counries and cultures that spawned it. At the moment standard British and American English are reasonably close to the kind of soulless "International English" of EU policy documents; who's to say that in a couple of hundred years they won't be as far removed from each other as modern French and Spanish are from Latin?

[tigertiger]

Likewise, I expect that as English becomes more internationalised it will become more divorced from the counries and cultures that spawned it. At the moment standard British and American English are reasonably close to the kind of soulless "International English" of EU policy documents;

IMHO a contributing factor to the reason why these EU documents are soulless is that they have to be written in English at L2 level. So all nuance is lost. With a limited vocabulary there are few semantic games to enjoy.

By contrast, I read recently, English (both AmE and BrE) has adopted and is struggling with the influences of language (mostly vocab) from about 350 other living languages.

English has been, and always will be, morphing into something new . This is why I get a little annoyed with 'Native' speakers and 'Native' teachers who castigate the use of new varieties of English. Perhaps without realising it they too are part of language imperialism.

[metal56]

English has been, and always will be, morphing into something new . This is why I get a little annoyed with 'Native' speakers and 'Native' teachers who castigate the use of new varieties of English. Perhaps without realising it they too are part of language imperialism.

In the main, I agree with you, but what is the difference between native English speakers who castigate the use of new varieties of English and those speakers of a languages such as Basque or Cornish who wish to preserve those languages? Could we say that the NES are also just trying to preserve their language?

[metal56]

Interesting comment:

Mark Thompson, Brazil

I think the advent of an international form of English is inevitable. Those learners who go and spend time in a specific English-speaking country will obviously assimilate idioms, accents and peculiarities particular to that region, but those who learn in their mother country for travel or work purposes should be aware that the objective will be to communicate effectively with other international speakers of English - in my view there will soon be a culture of dropping the 3rd person 'S', uncountable nouns becoming countable etc - it's inevitable. For me, the important point is usefulness - why should I spend time on UK idioms/pronunciation with students have no intention of going there? Perhaps it's sad but at the end of the day the objective is communication.

http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/talk/ ... onal.shtml

[fluffyhamster]

Interesting comment:

Mark Thompson, Brazil

For me, the important point is usefulness - why should I spend time on UK idioms/pronunciation with students have no intention of going there? Perhaps it's sad but at the end of the day the objective is communication.

http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/talk/ ... onal.shtml

I doubt if most serious teachers teach regional idioms, unless asked very specific questions about their regionalect; that being said, I think idioms should be investigated by teachers to see if they contain any functions etc that have been overlooked (the challenge then is to think of ways to express the meaning in a less idiomatic way).

[JuanTwoThree]

Newton published in Latin in the years around 1700, by which time the language had no geographical owners. Obviously its owners by then were the educated: it made sense to use a language that they all could read. I wonder though if Cicero woud have understood Newton.


English is at present in a very different situation, though perhaps in India and neighbouring countries it has something of the same status. Something similar happens here in Europe at meetings and conferences atttended by few or no NS's.

Is this English subtly moving away from the NS version?

Who said that linguistic change was impossible to observe as it was happening?

We need to wait a couple of hundred years. But we can observe that AmE did not split away from BrE to any great extent, nor did AusE despite the great distances. The breaking down of English into distinct languages doesn't seem to have happened Latin-style, yet. Nor has Spanish broken down still more. Personally I don't think either ever will, the world has shrunk so much.

As for teaching, teach the English you know.

[metal56]

I doubt if most serious teachers teach regional idioms, unless asked very specific questions about their regionalect; that being said, I think idioms should be investigated by teachers to see if they contain any functions etc that have been overlooked (the challenge then is to think of ways to express the meaning in a less idiomatic way).

"UK idioms" doesn't necessarily entail regional idioms in the way we generally think about the word "regionalism".

[tigertiger]

English has been, and always will be, morphing into something new . This is why I get a little annoyed with 'Native' speakers and 'Native' teachers who castigate the use of new varieties of English. Perhaps without realising it they too are part of language imperialism.

In the main, I agree with you, but what is the difference between native English speakers who castigate the use of new varieties of English and those speakers of a languages such as Basque or Cornish who wish to preserve those languages? Could we say that the NES are also just trying to preserve their language?

Perhaps the difference is that they wish to preserve local culture and local language. They are victims of the dominanace of the main/standard language.

However the Cornish and Basque seperatists do not wish expand the use of language only preserve it. This is as much about Nationalism here, which related to/antidote to imoperialism perhaps.

But the loss of language and culture is a serious issue that all linguists should consider.

[metal56]

Perhaps the difference is that they wish to preserve local culture and local language. They are victims of the dominanace of the main/standard language.

Yes, that so true, but maybe some NES also feel worried that their form of English will become dominated by International English (the simplified version of English).

But the loss of language and culture is a serious issue that all linguists should consider.

I agree. Linguists and governments.