Problem of Global English - Literature review Example

Global English Student Name Course Tutor Institution Date 5. Linguistic Imperialism Introduction In an in increasingly globalised world economy, there are infinite benefits of embracing a language that is spoken around the world. So far, the English language has emerged as best fitting for that purpose and therefore rightfully deserves to be referred to as an international language. Hundreds of millions of people around the world today speak English as a foreign or second language, implying that the number of non-native speakers of the English language is presently almost double the number of native speakers. Several researchers have established that speakers of English around the world no longer regard English as belonging to the native speakers, but as a property of all that speak or want to learn the language (Kachru, 2005). English, Hindi and Chinese have the highest number of mother tongue speakers around the globe. But in referring to a language as a global language or world language, it should not be in reference to the percentage of native speakers of the language, but more importantly, it should mean that the language is widely used as a tool of communication between several communities. As clarified by Crystal (1997), a world language should imply that the language plays “a special role that is recognized in every country”. Brutt Griffler (2002) highlights four attributes that are distinctive of a world language: (1) The language must have worldwide economic and cultural significance (2) The language must not be regarded as belonging to the elite (3) The language must establish itself among several other languages in a multilingual context (4) The spread of the language should not be attributed to individual speakers, but should spread through macroacquisition wherever it is spoken as a second or foreign language. English is widely recognized as befitting the status of a world language. However, the spread and use of English has been widely regarded in linguistic discourse as unfair, dominative and discriminative (Kirkpatrick, 2004). The objective of this paper is to explore different views held on the global spread and impact of English by renowned scholars and researchers including Robert Phillipson, David Crystal and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas. The first chapter of the discussion will be focused on evaluating Crystal’s perception of Global English. The second chapter will explore Phllipson’s and Skutnabb-Kangas’s views on linguistic imperialism, and how this views contrast each other and other views from renowned researchers. The third chapter will provide a brief analysis of research undertaken by Alistair Pennycook where she explores six different perspectives of the global spread of English. In the final chapter, a concise evaluation of the inadequacies of the different theoretical perspectives advanced in this discussion is provided. Robert Philipson-Linguistic Imperialism Linguistic imperialism is an expression coined by Robert Philipson. He is also regarded to be largely “English”, having grown up in London, studied at University of Amsterdam and taught at University of Roskilde in Denmark. Philipson is married to Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, a prolific researcher and writer. They share common interests in aspects such as the role of English, linguistic human rights, racism, imperialism, language and power, the global spread of English, and issues of gender and ethnicity. More emphasis in this discussion will be on Phillipson’s contribution to the discourse of the spread of English, and more so because he has been a prolific critic of Crystal’s views. Both Crystal and Phillipson have published numerous articles that provide healthy criticism of each others perspectives, and which will be an essential contribution to this discussion. As defined by Phillipson, linguistic imperialism refers to the process where “the dominance of English is asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages”. Linguicim is a concept that was advanced by Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, which she defines as ‘ideologies and structures which are used to legitimate, effectuate and reproduce unequal division of power and resources (both material and non-material) between groups which are defined on the basis of language” (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). There arises a very sharp distinction between Crystals and Phillipson's point of view in consideration of the above arguments. First, Crystal assumes a very scientific approach in supporting his views, while Phillipson's views intensely portray a typical linguistic agenda. Phillipson emerges as a defender of the dominated minority, and views Crystal’s perspective as a “proud endorsement’ of the perception of the global dominance of the English language. Phillipson's research largely focuses on linguistic imperialism and linguicism. In the era of colonialist imperialism, the powerful nations of Europe regarded themselves as the liberators of uncivilized race. They considered it their responsibility to free colonies from prohibitive indigenous cultures, and to “civilize” them. Apparently, this notion has been perceived by many scholars as not just racist, but arrogant and destructive. Phillipson's argument is that not much has changed, only that that this colonialism has been transformed to a more subtle form. The colonialism that was previously exercised with more control and brutal force is now achieved through more sophisticated and invisible means such as linguistic imperialism. Discrimination through physical appearance has in the past few decades been deemed to be morally unacceptable, which has paved way for other forms that are more or less founded on cultural invasion by use of language. The more powerful countries, because of their economic prowess, easily influence and dominate attitudes and opinions in developing countries, thereby consequently dominating indigenous cultures in these countries (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). The English language, according Phillipson, is thus effectively employed to suppress indigenous languages and culture. As pointed out by Ngugi wa Thiong’o in decolonizing the mind, talented individuals from unprivileged countries abandon their cultures and traditions in an attempt to explore the power of the English language (Ngugi, wa Thiong’o, 1993). As observed by Philipson, linguistic imperialism is used in the same way religion was used in the colonial era, where instead of physically attacking vulnerable communities, imperialists through the spread of English as a superior language denigrate the culture and language of poorer countries. Philipson goes further to explain that groups that are dominated using such “modern” techniques of colonialism tend to suffer more harsh consequences than those that were physically colonized during the colonial era. Victims of linguistic imperialism are not only stripped of power, their language and culture, their indigenous identity is significantly compromised. It thus becomes very easy to exploit dominated groups that have clearly lost their sense of identity. A significant distinction is however evident in Phillipson's and Skutnabb-Kangas’s views about the spread and impact of the global spread and dominance of the English language. Skutnabb-Kangas observes that what researchers when reporting on their findings miss out on the emotional sensitivity of the issues in question. She is more distressed by the fact that researchers of issues pertaining to the scope and impact of language dominance completely disregard the suffering and pain of dominated communities. According to Skutnabb-Kangas, researchers have a moral obligation to delve more on the remedies that can be instituted to mitigate the adverse effects of forms of neo-colonialism such as linguistic imperialism. This opinion is further reiterated by Peter Muhlahausler, who observes that linguistics have for a longtime remained neutral when reporting on the injustices and immorality of linguistic dominance (Muhlhausler, 1996), a strategy Skutnabb-Kangas regards to least benefit both the profession and the speakers of affected languages. Her objective, she adds, “is to expose the unsoundness of such an attitude and to make future generations of Pacific and Australian linguists of their responsibility to the linguistic ecology of the region” (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). A significant difference between Crystal and Phillipson is that Crystal attempts to describe the linguistic circumstance of the English language as they are, without taking sides on whether it is good or bad. It has been observed by critics of Crystal such as Phillipson that he does not offer tangible solutions to the linguistic challenge at hand, but more or less writes to inform, rather than influence. In contrast, Philipson and Skutnabb-kangas consider it their moral obligation to influence, and consider the neutrality exemplified In Crystal’s views as “morally dangerous”. David Crystal Professor David Crystal has published over 100 books on the English language, with his first major work having been published in 1964. The focus of his research has been mainly on stylistics and intonation, and linguistic applications to issues of religion and education (Crystal, 2003). In English as a global language, Crystal provides a comprehensive exploration of the scope and impact of the English language in the past several decades. While proponents of Crystal’s perspective hold that his publications provide a very realistic view of the global spread of the English language, critics have alleged that Crystal’s work is an exaggeration of the actual status of English which apparently is oblivious of the very sensitive issues that face non-English speakers especially in developing countries. According to crystal, learning the English language significantly empowers non-English speakers. He goes further to postulate that the drastic increase in the number of non-native English speakers has led to the emergence of a world English. In consideration of the global interdependence witnessed in the past decade, Crystal observes that the English language plays a significant role in the empowerment of the marginalized and subjugated communities of the world. In response to this argument, Robert Phillipson has intensely criticized Crystal’s perspective that the English language has in recent times been taken over by its speakers globally who are independent of the Anglo-American gatekeepers and who are able to make independent decisions regarding the use of the language. Phillipson considers this view to be an outright fantasy. In evaluating Crystal’s contribution, it is important to note that as an expert on English as a language, he plays a profound role in determining the future of the language. Consequently, a significant obligation of the linguistic intellectual fraternity is to regard his work with skepticism, while observing a healthy distance. However balanced his views may be, it is thus morally important to be critical of his contribution. The bias in crystal’s perspective is most likely to arise by virtue of him being purely “English”, having grown up in Northern Ireland where English was his first language, and proceeded to Liverpool and University College of London. The consequences of the theories and ideologies held by researchers such as Crystal have been known to influence policies on education especially in third world countries. Policies that have been developed for instance in Africa and India have impacted very negatively on indigenous languages. This is largely attributed to the fact that the English language is accorded supreme status over local languages, in what would be referred to by Philipson as “linguistic imperialism” As observed by Crystal, it is apparent that the global community has moved from the perception of a world language as a mere theory, to an evident reality (Brutt-Griffler, 2002). Crystal’s argument of English emerging as a world language has elicited immense criticism; with some critic’s even referring o Crystal views as a triumphalism. To ground his opinion, Crystal makes reference to the death of Latin, which previously would have been regarded as outrageous. He reiterates that the growth of English as a global language with far reaching consequences on global relations is something to be looked forward to with wonder and excitement. In consideration of the global imbalance in economic, political and military prowess, the notion of English emerging as the language of the world is causing immense concern and discomfort among many people. Under the leadership of George W. bush for instance, the United States of America emerged as a global symbol of imperialism, insensitivity, arrogance, moral insolvency, and environmental negligence. The inevitable consequence of the US’s economic ad military prowess was the proliferation of the American values and attitudes across world nations. The role that the English language plays, as the dominant language in the US, cannot thus be overemphasized. It should be noted that it is through the use of the English language that controversial American ideologies and attitudes are transmitted to apparently vulnerable nations of the world such is India and in Africa. The growth of the English as the language of the world has been observed by many skeptics as to have a tremendous negative impact especially in third world countries. In contrary, Crystal is optimistic that the global spread of English presents a wide range of opportunities for English learners around the globe, with increased prosperity and fortune. This perspective has received immense criticism from the likes of Philipson, whose perspective and opinions we explore next. Alastair Pennycook-The six models In research done by Alastair Pennycook, she came up with six models that provide essential insight on the spread and impact of the global spread of English. She however lays more emphasis on the sixth model which she comprehensively elaborates. In the diagram below, Pennycook illustrates the developmental, cultural and pedagogical implications of her six perspectives. View of the Global spread of English Implication for Culture and development Pedagogical Implications Colonial celebratory English an inherently important language Teach English to those who can appreciate it Modernization English is a crucial tool for modernization Teach English to modernize the world Leissez faire liberalism English a functional tool for pragmatic purposes Business as usual: give the people what they want Imperialism Homogenization, destruction of other cultures and languages Language rights, instruction in mother tongues, protectionism Linguistic hybridity Language & culture change and adapt World Englishes, multiple standards: assume change Post-colonial performativity Cultural politics of change, language, knowledge and difference Critical education of language for struggle: appropriabiity The colonial-celebratory perspective regards English as naturally and practically superior. According to Pennycook, the English language is considered by many researchers to receive unnecessary glorification stemming from its grammatical features and history. Pennycook however admonishes this criticism of English as an attempt to deny people the use of the most importation language in the world (Pennycook, 1999). The modernization concept regards English as the language of modernization, akin to the various forms of modern technological advancement. English as the global language thus plays a significant role in enhancing efficiency in communication as the world becomes more networked. The problem with this perspective is that it does not take into account the negative impact that English has on other cultures and languages. This view also disregards the controversial issue of power, where exportation of the language is regarded by some scholars such as Phillipson as a form of domination or linguistic imperialism. Laissez-faire liberalism typically refers to the position held by Crystal. This position focuses on two problems arising from the global spread of English; international intelligibility and historical identity. International intelligibility is more or less similar to the view of modernization. Historical identity refers to the preservation of mother tongues regardless of whether people decide to embrace the English language or not. Crystal envisions an ideal world where people speak English, but also maintain their culture and traditions. He cites the example of Scandinavian countries which exemplify such an ideal situation (Pennycook, 1999). In contrast, other scholars including Pennycook regard the laissez-faire liberalism ideology which emphasizes neutrality and personal choice as the most precarious of the perspectives advanced in linguistic discourse Imperialism is largely associated with Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas. The focus of this position is on linguistic imperialism or domination, language ecology, linguicism or language based discrimination, and linguistic human rights. The problem with the imperialism ideology is failure to consider the impact that this phenomenon has on learners of the English language and over simplification of the harsh realities that the dominance of English has on dominated cultures and languages. Several scholars have criticized Phillipson's ideology of linguistic imperialism, regarding it as impersonal and inadequate in highlighting how social inequality is perpetuated by cultural, governmental, and economic institutions. Phillipson’s perspective fails to consider the experience of linguistic hegemony among the communities and people in the periphery. Critics of Phillipson such as Crystal are of the view that linguistic imperialism not only serves to breed contempt among different language speakers of the world, but also dwarfs the complex nature of the challenges presented by the dominance of the English language. Linguistic hybridity is a view that was advanced by Rajagopalan. The focus of this position is how English has taken new and different forms around the globe and regards the hybrid forms of English as discrete units that have overtime developed identities and strengths that are unique to them. These new hybrid forms are considered in this perspective to be immune to the dominance of western cultures. Despite the fact that this perspective brings into focus the major weaknesses in the imperialism ideology, it fails to reckon the long-term adverse consequences of western globalization. Postcolonial perfomativity is primarily Pennycook's view of the global spread and influence of English. This perspective has been observed by linguistic scholars as a combination of imperialism and hybridity ideologies. In his explanation of the view postcolonial perfomativity, Pennycook brings up the concept of appropriation, which refers to how non-English speakers in learning English transform English words and phrases into their own. In this perspective, an evaluation of how languages are learned ought to be in consideration of the different contexts in which the language is to be used. Pennycook acknowledges the complexity of the modern postcolonial world, which cannot be satisfactorily explained by basic theories of globalization and domination. As observed by Pennycook, “ both the liberal approach of Crystal, with its global and local languages in mutual relationship , or the more critical view of Phillipson and others, with its local diversity threatened by global homogeneity, may be inadequate”. By and large, it is not entirely accurate to regard a language as being imperialistic, racist or sexist. As Pennycook observes, the most significant factor that differentiates languages is how they are structured, and thus, it would be more beneficial to discuss “Discourse Imperialism” rather than linguistic imperialism. As recognized by most of the scholars discussed above, English would be a more useful tool in enhancing the overall welfare of all people if it was to be learned additively within the framework of “language ecology”. Most of the scholars whose research findings are discussed above acknowledge the adverse effects that that the dominance of the English language may have on the cultures and languages of vulnerable communities especially in Africa and India. That notwithstanding, they all acknowledge the significant influence of the global spread of English, and despite the fact that it has the potential of disrupting the cultural fabric of some communities, the language has played a significant role in not only enhancing communication, but empowering nations of the world. This is not to disregard the opinions of the many people who consider English as a necessary evil, but which should be the impetus for further research on why and how the spread of English has caused apparent discomfort among some people. In consideration of the challenges that nations of the world have to find urgent solutions to, such as climate change , development of a sustainable environment, terrorism and the threat of nuclear weapons, one may easily question the logic and essence of being overly concerned about the apparent threat of the spread of the English language. Nonetheless, in consideration of English as an international language, and not a “world language” as controversially referred to in some sources of this discussion, it should be agreeable to all English speakers and learners that the language should serve its primary and noble purpose of enhancing communication and interdependence in an increasingly globalized and networked world, rather than disrupting indigenous cultures and languages (Pennycook, 1999). Ultimately, perceptions regarding the spread and impact of English are highly personal, as every individual learner can exercise personal discretion on whether to embrace English as a language, or to also adopt the culture of the native English speakers as well. Ultimately, the use of the English language should be perceived positively, as a language that presents advantages for equal sharing of opportunities and possibilities for all speakers and learners of the language. Conclusion In conclusion of her findings, Pennycook observes that the global language situation in the postcolonial era is rather much more complex to be assessed by most of the simplistic approaches that have been advanced in linguistic discourse. Such theories, according to Pennycook, do not highlight the harsh effects of language dominance on the culture and language of vulnerable communities. She observes that most of the theories are based on concepts that are unclear and ambiguous. Several concepts are undefined in these theories, such as what culture is, or what language and cultural dominance is. As pointed out by Phillipson, researchers into linguistic matters ought to realize that the problem of English is an ethical one, and not a linguistic one. List of References Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: a study of its development. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Crystal, David. 2001. “English World wide.” In: Hogg, R. & D. Denison (eds) Cambridge Shorter History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, David. 2003. English as a global language. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Pres. Pennycook, Alastair. 1999. “Development, culture and language: ethical concerns in postcolonial world.” Plenary address to the 4th Language and Development Conference, Hanoi, Vietnam, October. Muhlhausler, Peter. 1996. Linguistic Ecology: change and Linguistic Imperialism in the Pacific region: Rouitledge Ngugi, wa Thiong’o (1993): Moving the Centre. The struggle for Cultural freedoms London: James currey Ltd. Trudgill, P. and Hannah J. 2002. International English: A guide to Varieties of Standard English: Arnold Kachru, Y. (2005). Teaching and Learning of World Englishes. In E. Hinkel (Ed), Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching (pp. 155-173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earbaum Kirkpatrick, A. (2004). English as an ASEAN lingua Franca: Implications for research and language teaching. Asian Englishes, 6, 82-91 Phillipson, Robert. 2000. Linguistic Imperialism. 5th ed. Oxford University Press. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove, 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education-or worldwide Diversity and Human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove &Robert Phillipson, 2001. “Linguicide.” Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics, 567-70 Read More

Robert Philipson-Linguistic Imperialism Linguistic imperialism is an expression coined by Robert Philipson. He is also regarded to be largely “English”, having grown up in London, studied at University of Amsterdam and taught at University of Roskilde in Denmark. Philipson is married to Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, a prolific researcher and writer. They share common interests in aspects such as the role of English, linguistic human rights, racism, imperialism, language and power, the global spread of English, and issues of gender and ethnicity.

More emphasis in this discussion will be on Phillipson’s contribution to the discourse of the spread of English, and more so because he has been a prolific critic of Crystal’s views. Both Crystal and Phillipson have published numerous articles that provide healthy criticism of each others perspectives, and which will be an essential contribution to this discussion. As defined by Phillipson, linguistic imperialism refers to the process where “the dominance of English is asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages”.

Linguicim is a concept that was advanced by Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, which she defines as ‘ideologies and structures which are used to legitimate, effectuate and reproduce unequal division of power and resources (both material and non-material) between groups which are defined on the basis of language” (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). There arises a very sharp distinction between Crystals and Phillipson's point of view in consideration of the above arguments. First, Crystal assumes a very scientific approach in supporting his views, while Phillipson's views intensely portray a typical linguistic agenda.

Phillipson emerges as a defender of the dominated minority, and views Crystal’s perspective as a “proud endorsement’ of the perception of the global dominance of the English language. Phillipson's research largely focuses on linguistic imperialism and linguicism. In the era of colonialist imperialism, the powerful nations of Europe regarded themselves as the liberators of uncivilized race. They considered it their responsibility to free colonies from prohibitive indigenous cultures, and to “civilize” them.

Apparently, this notion has been perceived by many scholars as not just racist, but arrogant and destructive. Phillipson's argument is that not much has changed, only that that this colonialism has been transformed to a more subtle form. The colonialism that was previously exercised with more control and brutal force is now achieved through more sophisticated and invisible means such as linguistic imperialism. Discrimination through physical appearance has in the past few decades been deemed to be morally unacceptable, which has paved way for other forms that are more or less founded on cultural invasion by use of language.

The more powerful countries, because of their economic prowess, easily influence and dominate attitudes and opinions in developing countries, thereby consequently dominating indigenous cultures in these countries (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). The English language, according Phillipson, is thus effectively employed to suppress indigenous languages and culture. As pointed out by Ngugi wa Thiong’o in decolonizing the mind, talented individuals from unprivileged countries abandon their cultures and traditions in an attempt to explore the power of the English language (Ngugi, wa Thiong’o, 1993).

As observed by Philipson, linguistic imperialism is used in the same way religion was used in the colonial era, where instead of physically attacking vulnerable communities, imperialists through the spread of English as a superior language denigrate the culture and language of poorer countries. Philipson goes further to explain that groups that are dominated using such “modern” techniques of colonialism tend to suffer more harsh consequences than those that were physically colonized during the colonial era.

Read More