Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL

Marko Modiano

Those who view the spread of English as linguistic imperialism question the English language teaching and learning enterprise because, from their point of view, it compromises the cultural integrity of the non-native speaker. In this paper I argue that while linguistic imperialism is certainly real, and demands to be addressed, one possible way for the language instructor to come to terms with the cultural imposition of English language learning is to utilize ELT practices which position and define English as an international language (EIL ). In my view, the alternative, promoting so-called prestige varieties, positions the practitioner as a purveyor of Anglo-American hegemony, and perpetuates the negative impact which foreign language learning can have on the cultural integrity of the learner. ELT practices and

the danger of AngloAmerican hegemony

In an exchange of views on the role of the language instructor, Kanavillil Rajagopalan and A. Suresh Canagarajah offer stimulating insights into the implications of English language teaching as a function of linguistic neo-colonialism (see Canagarajah 1999; Rajagopalan 1999). The latter, who is in opposition to the basic tenets of Robert Phillipsons theory of linguistic imperialism (Phillipson 1992), voices concern over how such theories impact negatively on the classroom teacher. He states that The concerted rhetoric currently being orchestrated against the pretensions of English . . . can understandably lead to an increasing unease and a nagging guilt complex among those who are involved . . . in the enterprise of spreading the English language (1999: 200). Rajagopalan sees no reason why English instructors should feel guilt. There is convincing evidence, however, that foreign language learning can have potentially adverse effects on the cultures and languages of the learner. For this reason, there is a need to gain a better understanding of those aspects of the ELT practitioners behaviour which can be perceived as furthering the forces of linguistic imperialism. When a practitioner explains to students that one variety is superior to others, as is the case when proponents of AmE or BrE, for example, instil in the minds of students the idea that other varieties are less valued, such practices interject into the ELT activity systems of exclusion which marginalize speakers of other varieties. On more subliminal levels, when an instructor presents vocabulary in the classroom which is clearly based
ELT Journal Volume 55/4 October 2001 Oxford University Press 339

Imperialism in practice Exclusion

articles

welcome

on one variety, such as the teaching of AmE or BrE lexis, without providing students with equivalents from other varieties, this activity presupposes that such lexical registers are more useful in comparison to other lexical domains. Thus, in practice, it establishes a view of the language which, because it is culture-specific, presents English as the property of a specified faction of the native-speaker contingency. In addition, students learning English where culture-specific educational norms are emphasized become coerced into conforming to a nation-state centred view, as opposed to an international frame of reference.

Near-native proficiency

Insisting on near-native proficiency in the ELT context is an act of imposition for those students who do not want to learn English with integration motivation. For learners who primarily want to acquire the language because it is a useful cross-cultural communicative tool, pressure to attain near-native proficiency may result in establishing them as auxiliary members of the culture which is represented by the prescriptive educational standard, something not in harmony with their own self-image. For these students, the language is not presented as a lingua franca primarily designed to provide them with access to the global village, but is instead an avenue into cultural indoctrination. Thus, when discussing what ELT practitioners should do to quell the accusation that they are agents working for the domination of the cultures which they represent, or which they identify with, it is clear that a macro approach to English is required. A multiplicity of teaching practices, and a view of the language as belonging to a broad range of peoples and cultures, is the best that language instructors can do, in institutionalized teaching and learning settings, to promote cultural equality. What happens outside the instruction hall, the exposure which students have to other input which is also an aspect of linguistic imperialism, is beyond the language instructors control, and so cannot be associated with ELT activities.

Undermining cultural Institutionalized English language learning based on culture-specific diversity prescriptive norms, and supported by exposure to the language in a wide
spectrum of activities, comprises a programme which can be perceived as being what Phillipson calls an imperialist structure of exploitation of one society or collectivity by another (1992: 55). Such positioning supports a belief that the promotion of the English language undermines cultural diversity. English virtually Anglo-Americanizes the non-native speaker. Because English is such a dominant force in world affairs (and the bulwark of Western ideology), there is a danger that its spread dilutes (and corrupts) the distinguishing characteristics of other languages and cultures. Some sociolinguists perceive this process as linguistic imperialism, pointing out that government agencies and private enterprises, primarily in the UK and the US , export educational materials and operate language schools as a way to extend their sphere of influence. Braj Kachru proposes that one way to safeguard the cultural integrity of the nonnative speaker is to promote those indigenized varieties of English which are established forms of intranational communication (see Kachru
340 Marko Modiano

articles

welcome

1982). For Europe, however, where the ideology of integration motivation, near-native proficiency, and educational standards based on prestige varieties is accepted and practised, the impositions of AngloAmericanization are only beginning to be discussed. One hears of McDonaldization. Nevertheless, European integration, and the use of English as the unofficial language for European affairs, is forcing EU citizens to come to terms with Anglo-American linguistic imperialism.

The political dimension

It is apparent that opposition to the spread of the tongue on the basis of the alleged imperialistic function of English language learning is rooted in specific political orientations. For the left-wing thinker, for example, the notion of English as a global language could be found questionable because oppressive capitalist values flourish in those cultures which are defined as English speaking. One remedy, they argue, can be found in the promotion of a multitude of international tongues. This would quell the force behind the current scramble for acquiring English, and dilute the impact which Anglo-American forces have on the non-native speakers cultural and linguistic integrity. David Graddol (1997) is doubtful not only of the ability of the tongue to continue to maintain its position as the worlds lingua franca, but also of the native-speakers ability to maintain their position as representatives of the tongue. He contends that there is a growing assertiveness among countries adopting English as a second language that English is now their language, through which they can express their own values and identities, create their own intellectual property and export goods and services to other countries (ibid.: 3). The same can be said of foreignlanguage speakers. In a critique of Kachrus inner, outer, and expanding circles model, which Graddol believes will not be the most useful for describing English usage in the next century because it locates the native speakers and native-speaking countries at the centre of the global use of English, and, by implication, the sources of models of correctness (ibid.: 10), Graddol instead suggests that the centre of gravity is shifting to the L2 speaker. In political terms, it is evident that British Council ideologues are pursuing this liberal line of reasoning partly because it is the logical conclusion to draw, but also because such strategic positioning promises the larger market share for the British Council in the new era. We must keep in mind that acquiring English is something difficult to avoid. English is now a prerequisite for participation in a vast number of activities. The global village is being constructed in the English language, as are the information highways. Access to findings in science and technology is made through English, and scientists who want to partake in the discussions which are currently taking place internationally must have a command of the tongue. Moreover, the entertainment field, as well as the arts, are moving steadily toward a realm where English is a requirement for participation. In industrial, financial, and diplomatic arenas, English is also making gains. Individuals who desire or need to participate in the international movement will be rendered incapable of doing so without learning English.
Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL 341

A futurology of English

International communication

articles

welcome

Who experiences globalization?

It is this property of English, the necessity of learning the language, which so profoundly challenges those opposed to the spread of the tongue. Pennycook questions the very foundation of English as an International Language ideologies, in asking whether the assumption that the world, global, or international are unproblematic constructs (1994: 38). His answer is that they are not positivistic for a large number of people. Pennycook suggests that while a privileged few enjoy the benefits of globalization, many more suffer as a consequence. It is clear here that Pennycook, like Phillipson, wants to superimpose the Marxist maxim of exploiter and exploited onto linguistic scenarios in which both advantaged and disadvantaged players participate. Conversely, John Honey, the radical defender of standard English, in calling for the promotion of a prescriptive educational standard, insists that it is through a mastery of standard English that the disenfranchized are given an opportunity to partake in the discourses which will lead them forward (Honey 1997). For Honey, to be without a command of an educated form of English is to be denied the tools which are required to lift oneself up, so to speak, and get on in the world. Thus, to those on the left English is exploitative, while those in the conservative camp insist that the disenfranchized must conform to specified standards in order to acquire wealth. Regardless of what position ELT practitioners take in this debate, the necessity of learning English will continue to be a concern for an increasing number of people. One could say that in terms of linguistic politics, Pennycook and Honey are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Each has a conviction that their particular ideology has functional value in language planning. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that the spread of English (and the linguistic behaviour of the non-native speaker) is no longer solely in the hands of the educators or ideologues who perceive themselves as the engineers of language learning. Instead, with globalization, the English language is making inroads into the consciousness of non-native English speakers in a manner which is securely cut off from the influences of education authorities. Information technology is introducing new avenues for the English language to take as it continues to colonize the hearts and minds of millions of non-native speakers. While Pennycooks animosity to this spread will have little bearing on its progress, the call for the promotion of a culture specific Standard English is equally doomed to fail (see Modiano 1999b). The increasing use of English among non-native speakers has radically changed the way in which we perceive this languages international function. Now, as the lingua franca, it is public property, and has taken on new characteristics. A global culture is emerging wherein cultural artefacts are being created in the English language by non-native speakers. In Europe and elsewhere it is becoming commonplace to write in English without first composing texts in a native tongue. Swedish musicians, for example, have for some time produced popular songs in the English language which have been successful internationally (from ABBA to Ace of Base). Thus, access to global markets is made through the creation of cultural artefacts in the English language. The artefact itself is
Marko Modiano

English has a mind of its own

New properties of the lingua franca and global culture

342

articles

welcome

not necessarily steeped in the distinctiveness of a defined and unique culture, but is instead a marker of world culture. Across the board, from film to music to literature, there is an increasing number of cultural artefacts which are not produced in the native tongue of the artists responsible for the expression.

Global culture in English

This movement, along with widespread exposure, learning, and use of English, profoundly impacts on those cultures which up to now have retained distinctive identities. Here it is clear that while historically the spread of English was integrated into the processes of colonization under the auspices of Great Britain, and as such furthered the forces of British cultural hegemony, the imposition of English no longer stems from such clearly defined epicentres (although America and Britain are major factors). Instead, what can be perceived as a cultural imposition may very well have its origins in any number of places. The USA and the UK do not hold monopolies on what are perceived to be international cultural phenomena marketed in English. While globalization can be perceived as an active agent in the processes which contribute to a diminishing of cultural diversity, it can conversely be celebrated as emblematic of a new spirit of unity between diverse peoples and nations. Those who discredit the spread of English are nevertheless forced to accept the fact that the international movement requires a language of wider communication. It is also the case that there is a need to support minority languages and cultures. Like all cultural artefacts, languages give testimony to the unique heritage of humankind. Thus, one can say that the globalization movement is attempting a perilous balancing act. While on the one hand there is a call for a language of wider communication, for a common space, we have on the other hand a sincere desire to preserve cultural diversity. These two movements, which are contradictory, are bound to result in conflict and irresolution. A number of cultures have lost a distinct identity originating from an ancestral language as a result of linguistic imperialism. The British Isles, for example, have witnessed the spread of English across Scotland and Ireland, effectively reducing the Celtic languages thriving there to little more, in most places, than a curiosity. Traditional second language usage, (for example, Swedish in Finland) is also declining because of increased use of English. Moreover, in some peoples opinion, Western European languages such as French and German, are suffering from Anglo-Americanization. Nevertheless, the similarity in values, social organisation, religious orientation, etc., has made the spread of English less problematic for Europe. In the non-Western world, however, Western languages and modes of thinking are a greater imposition. Exploitation is far more relevant there. At the same time, access to the information highways and to the economic developments made possible through co-operation with the West can have a beneficial impact on these cultures.

The spirit of internationalism

The downside of the spread of English

Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL

343

articles

welcome

Cultural integration It appears that the forecast of the globalization process continuing and vs. linguistic diversity? gathering momentum in the coming decades is a reliable one. This
movement, which requires, as a precondition for success, a common tongue, has locked on to English and is now moving toward the second stage of development. That is to say, while the lingua franca was initially intended to bring people together, it is now being deployed in the creation of cultural artefacts which are representative of global culture. It is this movement of cultural integration, together with the social and economic necessities of knowing English, which will secure the English language as the platform upon which globalization will come into being. Graddol has made it clear that there is a possibility of English sharing global linguistic hegemony with Spanish and Chinese (1997: 3). However, while they may appear logical, such scenarios are essentially irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The momentum which English has amassed at this point in history is so great that there is every reason to assume that as a lingua franca English will continue to dictate protocol throughout the better part of this century. Nevertheless, because of the need to conserve linguistic diversity, it is reasonable that language planners should work toward demoting English and promoting the learning of other languages. Such a programme is currently being carried out in the EU . At the same time, however, improved English proficiency among the citizens of the EU can be observed. Programmes aimed at altering the movement toward increasing knowledge of English are up against a formidable force, and it is inconceivable that enough educational planning could be carried out to curtail the impact of the spread of English on the unique identity of a multitude of European cultures.

What role will a global educational standard play?

If then, as procurers of the English language, we are committed to utilizing language teaching and learning practices which are supportive of cultural diversity, we find ourselves faced with serious challenges. This is because it is impossible to learn a foreign language without being influenced ideologically, politically, culturally, etc. The teaching and learning of a geographically, politically, and culturally neutral form of English, which is perceived as a language of wider communication and not as the possession of native speakers, is one of the few options we have at hand if we want to continue to promote English language learning while at the same time attempting to somehow neutralize the impact which the spread of English has on the cultural integrity of the learner (see Modiano 1999a). This is because the use of a core-based English, as opposed to a variety based on the nation state, impacts less negatively on the culture and language(s) of the non-native speaker (there is less need to mimic specific behaviour, to assume multiidentities, to pay lip-service to foreign value systems, etc.). Instead, English, as an international language, is simply a utilitarian communicative tool, one which allows the non-native user to retain, to the greatest degree possible, their distinctive cultural characteristics. In an effort to construct a taxonomy for EIL , Jennifer Jenkins (2000) attempts to reconsider the problems of mutual phonological intelligibility . . . with the aim of facilitating the use of EIL (2000: 2).
Marko Modiano

A phonology for EIL

344

articles

welcome

Jenkins perceptions of her findings, situated in a belief that the cultural orientation of English, for the L2 speaker, must by definition be lingua franca-orientated, as opposed to being based on a prestigious L1 variety, leads her to contend that a core EIL phonology is more cross-culturally democratic (ibid.: 4). Here we see how an EIL perspective not only challenges traditional notions of educational standards, and teaching and learning practices, but more importantly positions ELT as an enterprise primarily dedicated to the acquisition of inter-cultural communicative skills.

An ecology of language

It is of paramount importance that educators investigate strategies which have the greatest likelihood of supporting the cultural integrity of those who are threatened by the spread of English. It is also in the best interest of the international community to begin implementing programmes which support the establishment of an international standard for English teaching and learning. An ecology of language and culture, like the movement for an ecology of the environment, will emerge as one of the primary challenges in our times. Here, linguistic ecology does not necessarily mean protecting languages from impurities, or influence from other languages, but is indicative of a desire to safeguard languages from becoming extinct. Never before in history has the multitude of human languages been more threatened by the spread of one specific tongue. We have been witnessing the expansion of this language for centuries, and many of us have dedicated our professional lives to its promotion. Our responsibility now must be to both embrace the beast and at the same time to tame it, to allow the language to act as the interface for the global network, while at the same time taking action to protect minority tongues and cultures from extinction. In the rush to participate in the global movement, the spread of English can potentially wreak havoc on any number of languages and cultures. While it is capable of ushering in the beneficial fruits of technology and of so-called Western advances, the English language, like other European languages with a colonialist legacy, is a dangerous bedfellow. New teaching and learning strategies can, to some extent, support nonnative speakers in their efforts to both participate in the global movement and at the same time preserve their unique identities. The ELT practitioner can be actively involved in this ecology of language mindset, and attempt to implement language teaching and learning practices which support the cultural and linguistic integrity of the nonnative speaker, or, alternatively, the practitioner can promote a nationstate based prescriptive norm, and in the process actively work towards a diminishing of cultural diversity. Hopefully, people responsible for language planning will take a hard look at some of the traditional practices which position the educational standard for English as being based on an American or British variety (or some other proposed prestige nation-state, culture-specific variety), and instead come to an understanding that as a lingua franca, an international view of the language is more conducive to the conservation of cultural pluralism. Revised version received April 2000
Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL 345

articles

welcome

References Canagarajah, A. S. 1999. On EFL teachers, awareness, and agency. ELT Journal 53/3: 20714. Graddol, D. 1997. The Future of English? London: British Council. Honey, J. 1997. Language is Power: the Story of Standard English and its Enemies. London: Faber and Faber. Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kachru, B. (ed.) 1982. The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Modiano, M. 1999a. International English in the global village. English Today 58/15: 1419. Modiano, M. 1999b. Standard English(es) and educational practices for the worlds lingua franca. English Today 60/15: 313. Pennycook, A. 1994. The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. Harlow: Longman. Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rajagopalan, K. 1999. Of EFL teachers, conscience, and cowardice. ELT Journal: 53/3: 2006.

The author Marko Modiano is Senior Lecturer in English at Gavie University, Sweden. He holds a PhD in British Literature from Uppsala University, Sweden, and a BA in English from San Francisco State University. His research interests include language policy issues for the EU , educational standards, language and learning practices, linguistic imperialism and cultural pluralism, Mid-Atlantic English, and English as an International Language. He is the author of A MidAtlantic Handbook (1996), and has published articles in World Englishes and English Today, as well as in various international journals and volumes of proceedings. Email: mmo@hig.se

346

Marko Modiano

articles

welcome