English language imperialism

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Beginning around the 12th century, the monarchs of England pursued a policy of expansion in the British Isles, first in the western part of Ireland, then in Wales (conquered in 1282), and finally in Scotland. These conquests experienced several setbacks but were ultimately completed by the Acts of Union 1707 between the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland. Meanwhile, Scotland had survived for centuries facing its powerful neighbour, England. In England, the prestige of French declined, mainly due to the war with France. As a result, in 1362, English was declared the sole language of Parliament. However, its use was adopted gradually. Henry IV (1367–1413) was the first English monarch since the Norman Conquest whose mother tongue was English. Consequently, English gained prestige.

In the conquered Celtic nations of Wales and Ireland, administration was conducted in the king's language, i.e., English. Grand buildings became English in style, influenced by their connection to the crown. However, the common people continued to speak their own languages: Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, and Irish – all Celtic languages. However, from the 18th century onwards, the decline of these Gaelic languages among the people accelerated due to immigration from England, the development of trade, and the influence of compulsory education. Urban areas became Anglicised, especially those facing England. As a result of the Anglicisation process, the use of Gaelic became confined to isolated areas far from dynamic centres. Immigration from the regions, particularly from Scotland and Wales, contributed significantly to the industrialisation of England. In Ireland, the main victims of the Potato Famine (1846–1848) were the poor, Gaelic-speaking populations in the west of the island. Millions of Irish people died, and 1.6 million emigrants^{[citation needed]} managed to escape, mostly to English-speaking countries, accelerating the decline of Gaelic. By the time of the Irish Republic's declaration of independence in 1921, only 2% of Irish people managed to use the Irish language,^[1] a proportion similar to that of Scottish Gaelic speakers. Today, the number of Gaelic speakers barely maintains the level of the early 20th century.^[2] On the other hand, nearly all Celtic people in the British Isles speak English.^[3]

In summary, the factors contributing to the weakening of the Celtic languages were:

• The conquest of the Celts by England.
• The imposition of the English language as the sole administrative language in fields such as bureaucracy, education, and the military.
• The British Empire, administered in English, first by England and then by Britain.
  • English speakers, perceived as wealthy, attracted economically disadvantaged Celtic peoples. Emigration support for Celtic peoples from central governments or the governments of Anglo-Saxon countries like the United States (then the Thirteen Colonies) and Canada.
• The power of major English-speaking countries in economic and industrial activities.
  • Opposing Celts became impoverished in rural areas.
• The cultural prestige of English through literature, newspapers, etc., which encouraged all the above factors.

After the Industrial Revolution, Great Britain gained mastery of the world's seas. It formed the British Empire, spanning regions on seven continents. For indirect rule in its colonies, Britain provided elite education in English to local upper classes. Consequently, when British colonies gained independence, groups from the minority privileged social class – descendants of that elite – built societies with an absolute preference for English to protect their own interests, leading to the emergence of ESL nations.

Through the "English language teaching promotion campaign" by the British Council(Phillipson 1992:137–52), a European (monolingual) model of English language teaching was established worldwide. Despite being completely unsuitable for non-Western regions, English language textbooks, teacher training, teaching theories and methods (applied linguistics) were promoted through Western-style education under the slogans of modernisation and democratisation.

In recent years, voices critical of efforts to forcibly push towards an "English-only" direction, ignoring the rights of national and regional languages other than English, have been heard more than before.^[4] However, 69% of European Union citizens respond that English is the "most useful" language (Phillipson 2003: 136),^[5] revealing that even in the European Union, where official multilingualism^ is supposedly particularly encouraged, this ideal often remains lip service.

In almost all areas of international society (politics, academia, commerce, finance, aviation,^[6] and even the military), "English dominance" is steadily progressing, relegating full multilingualism to the realm of utopia, reaching a point of no return. Even without going that far, it is at least perceptible that countless people, driven by intellectual curiosity or necessity, seek to learn much from English.

In the latter half of the 19th century, Japan, which had embarked on expanding its economic sphere during the "opening of the country" phenomenon – often simplistically described from the "West = modern" historical perspective – faced the "national language" issue. Arinori Mori, who would later become the first Minister of Education, advocated for adopting a simplified form of English as the national language – an "English as the national language theory" – in his book Education in Japan,^[7] published in the USA in 1873. Mori's argument provoked various reactions,^[8] including opposition from figures like Tatsui Baba and American linguist William Dwight Whitney.^[9]

In the modern era, as part of international understanding education,^[10] the "Period for Integrated Study"^[11] was established, and with the notion that English is essential for "international" dialogue, English was made compulsory from elementary school in Japan (revised Courses of Study).^[12] International exchange activities are also incorporated through the JET Programme.^[13]

Furthermore, due to socio-economic demands, practical language skills are sought, and there is an expectation to cultivate communicative competence, mainly through so-called "English conversation". For example, the Obuchi Cabinet proposed "English as a second official language" in 2000, and the MEXT under the Koizumi Cabinet announced the Action Plan to Cultivate "Japanese with English Abilities" in 2003.

In China, from September 2001, the starting age for compulsory English education was lowered from 11 to 9. The rise of the private English education industry is also remarkable. English carries significant weight in university entrance exams.

During the stage of basic education from elementary school to senior high school in China, over 90% of students choose English as their compulsory foreign language, especially at the junior high school level. From the late 1980s to the early 1990s, full-time general universities began implementing English proficiency tests to assess whether students had achieved the target level in English, a compulsory subject at each educational stage.^{[citation needed]}

In the mid-1960s, due to the fairly close relationship with the Soviet Union, the main first foreign language was Russian. However, from the mid-1960s onwards, and especially in 1978 and 1983, English (as a foreign language) was included in university entrance exams on par with other subjects. Consequently, English became compulsory in foreign language education in Chinese secondary education, particularly in junior high schools, and over 90% of senior high schools adopted English as a compulsory subject. Generally, in full-time universities, English is a compulsory subject, while other foreign language courses are electives.^{[citation needed]}

Thanks to university entrance exams, the status of English has become considerably high, leading to growing criticism in recent years that English is overemphasised, neglecting the abilities in Chinese, which should be the native language for the vast majority of citizens. Critics argue that many students spend too much time on English study, negatively impacting their major field of study and promoting a detachment from Chinese culture. On the other hand, some argue that as English holds the status of a "universal language", a shortage of personnel proficient in English would have adverse effects amid progressing globalisation.^{[citation needed]}

In fact, in Hong Kong's political and economic circles, there is a sense of crisis that the level of English proficiency significantly affects Hong Kong's international standing. English education has been compulsory from age 6.^[14]

In Taiwan, the target age for compulsory English education was lowered from 9 to 7 (or from 8 to 6).^[14]

In South Korea, the target age for compulsory English education was recently lowered from 13 to 9. Significant funds are invested in English education. There are concerns within South Korea that early English education might lead to a decline in national identity.^[14]

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Since the publication of Linguistic Imperialism (1992) by Danish scholar Robert Phillipson,^[15] which significantly influenced the debate on the merits and drawbacks of linguistic imperialism, the theory has attracted much attention among scholars specialising in applied English linguistics.^[16] Linguistic imperialism is also discussed within the context of cultural imperialism, encompassing fields such as media, education, and academia.

Phillipson (1992:78–108) cites prior research related to his theory of linguistic imperialism, including:

1. Language spread (e.g., Ansre 1975, Cooper 1982, Kachru 1986)
2. Sociology of language (e.g., Fishman 1972, 1977)
3. Language planning (e.g., Neustupny 1983, Pattanayak 1986, Cooper 1988)
4. Language teaching methodology (e.g., Lightbrown 1987, Spolsky 1989)
5. Linguistic rights (e.g., Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenants on Human Rights, European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, en:Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights)
6. The approaches of Wardhaugh (1987) and Calvet (1987)^[17]

Defining linguistic imperialism is always fraught with difficulty, as it largely depends on an individual's political beliefs and their relationship with the increasing political, economic, and military power of the Western English-speaking world. For example, Gerald Knowles, in his entry on "English language imperialism" for the Encyclopædia Britannica, defines English imperialism as follows:

"Linguistic imperialism necessarily involves the transfer to a dominant language to others. Basically this transfer is a manifestation of power, traditionally through military might but also, in the modern world, through economic power, and the aspects of the dominant culture are usually transferred together with the dominant language."^[18]

Linguist Robert Henry Lawrence Phillipson, in Phillipson (1992), defines linguistic imperialism as:

"the dominance asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages" (ibid: 47)

Phillipson's (ibid) central thesis is a strong critique of the historical expansion of English as an international language, and an exposition of how this "English dominance" is maintained today through that historical expansion, not only in postcolonial contexts like India, Pakistan, Uganda, or Zimbabwe, but also in neocolonial contexts such as Continental Europe. This thesis of Phillipson (ibid) primarily draws on Galtung's (1980) "theory of imperialism" and Gramsci's (1971) "social theory," particularly the concept of cultural hegemony (Joseph 2006: 52).

One central theme of Phillipson (1992) is the complex set of hegemonic processes by which English maintains its dominance in today's world. Phillipson (ibid: 173–222) analyses the rhetoric used by the British Council^[19] to promote English, discussing the underlying key discourses of applied English linguistics and English language teaching methodology. These include:

• English is best taught monolingually (the monolingual fallacy).
• The ideal teacher of English is a native speaker (the native speaker fallacy).
• The earlier English is taught, the better the results (the early start fallacy).
• The more English is taught, the better the results (the maximum exposure fallacy).
• If other languages are used too much, standards of English will drop (the subtractive fallacy).

According to Phillipson (1992:271–99), personnel in organisations like the British Council, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank that promote English, as well as individuals running English conversation schools, tend to use the following types of arguments:

• English-intrinsic arguments: They describe language as being God-given, valuable, noble, and interesting. Typically, these arguments emphasise that English possesses such qualities, whereas other languages do not.
• English-extrinsic arguments: They point out that English has a solid foundation, with well-trained teachers and abundant materials, as well as plentiful intangible resources such as knowledge and terminology.
• English-functional arguments: They emphasise the effectiveness of English as a gateway to the world.

Other arguments about English concern its:

• Economic and reproductive functions: providing people with technology.
• Ideological function: symbolising modernity.^[20]
• English as a symbol of material progress and efficiency.

Phillipson (ibid: 109–136) reports that in countries where English is not the native language, it often becomes the language of the elite. In influential international organisations like the United Nations, the World Bank, and the European Central Bank, the ability to speak in English is often a prerequisite for attaining management positions. This allows English-speaking nationals to influence decisions, creating an apparent contradiction with the democratic image associated with English.^[21]

While perhaps not overwhelmingly passionate, many scholars have participated in lively debates concerning Phillipson's (1992) claims. For instance, Welsh scholar Alan Davies (1996) pictures Phillipson's ghost haunting the Department of Applied Linguistics at the University of Edinburgh:^[22]

"Round up the usual suspects [Phillipson and his allies]. Root out not only those who all this time were merely pretending to teach applied linguistics but also those [Phillipson and his allies] who were seriously conspiring with the British Council to take over the world." he cries (ibid: 485).^[a]

According to Davies (ibid: 485), two cultures inhabit linguistic imperialism: "One is the culture of guilt ('Never again must colonial happen'). The other is the culture of romantic despair ('We should not be doing what we are doing')." Furthermore, Brazilian scholar Kanavilli Rajagopalan (1999) goes a step further, arguing that works like Calvet (2006), Gengo Kenkyūkai (1999: 95–128), and Phillipson (1992) have instilled a sense of guilt among teachers of English as a foreign language.

Davies (1996) also argues that Phillipson (1992)'s claims are not fallacious either. "What if the dominated adopt English and persist with it? Phillipson's (ibid: 8) unsubstantiated answer must be that they are, have been, and can be persuaded against their better interests (Davies 1996: 488)." Therefore, Phillipson (1992)'s thesis has been argued to be patronising, as it fails to recognise the scope for developing countries to make autonomous decisions, i.e., to decide autonomously whether or not to adopt English education.

Joseph Bisong (1995), in the Nigerian context, argues that people in the so-called periphery use English pragmatically. They send their children to schools where English is used, precisely because they want to raise them as multilingual speakers. Bisong (ibid) contends that Phillipson's (1992: 127) thesis attempts to distort sociolinguistic evidence to fit a preconceived proposition, interpreting it as a case of linguistic imperialism victims emanating from the centre (Bisong 1995: 125). Bisong (ibid) further argues that if English, being foreign, should be eradicated, then Nigeria itself, arguably a colonial construct (epistemology), should also be dismantled.

Furthermore, the very assumption that English itself is imperialistic has faced ongoing criticism. Henry Widdowson^[23] (1998a) of the University of Vienna, Austria, argued that "the idea that English by itself exercises hegemonic control is fundamentally contradictory: if it were true, it would preclude the possibility of ever challenging such control (ibid: 398)."

Additionally, the idea that promoting English necessarily implies the decline of regional languages has also been questioned for its validity. Irish scholar Marnie Holborow^[24] (1993: 359) points out, "Not all varieties of English in the centre are dominant, nor are all English speakers in the periphery equally discriminated against."^[25] For example, would Irish English be considered a dominated central variety of English?

English scholars also challenge Phillipson's (2007) idea that the hegemony of English is the result of a political conspiracy (Crystal 2003: 23–4). David Crystal^[26] (ibid: xiii) from Wales, considered an authority on English studies and linguistics, believes that while English may be the language of international communication, a kind of multilingualism should be maintained. Native English speakers favour maintaining the current hegemony of English. They seek to justify themselves by linking radical attitudes that challenge the spread of English history with the concept of linguistic imperialism.^{[citation needed]} In contrast, moderates are usually liberals who refute the English linguistic imperialism thesis; Crystal and Widdowson would likely fall into this category (ibid: 24).

In conclusion, it can be said that those following Phillipson view the language choice as imposed externally, whereas the opposing camp (e.g. Davies 1997: 248) views the language choice as a decision made by individuals.^[27]

Advocates defending the linguistic imperialism thesis argue that opposition to it is often championed by monolingual English native speakers who view the current status of English as a praiseworthy fact^{[citation needed]}.

Claude Piron (1994), a former interpreter for the United Nations and World Health Organization and a psycholinguist based in Switzerland, makes Phillipson's case even more effectively by showing that truly mastering English requires 10,000 hours of training – equivalent to six years of work. Thus, the use of English as the de facto sole working language of European Union institutions^[28] not only transforms the majority of the EU's non-English speaking population into second-class citizens^[29] but would also promote the dullness of the qualities of the English-speaking class leading Europe and larger cross-border initiatives.^[30]

In contrast, those who view the increasing spread of English in the world, sidelining the status of regional languages, as a potentially problematic development that gradually erodes and destroys cultural values, show significantly greater receptivity to Phillipson's views.

Generally, however, critics of the linguistic imperialism theory refrain from articulating unrealistic wishes and instead frequently encourage more foreign language learning, even if they themselves only speak one foreign language. Australian scholar Alastair Pennycook^[31] (1995, 1998, 2001), Sri Lankan scholar Suresh Canagarajah^[32] (1999), British scholar Adrian Holliday^[33] (2005), and Julian Edge^[34] (2006) are often considered to form a group of "critical linguists". Also, Widdowson's (1998b) remarks on critical discourse analysis might apply to the linguistic imperialism theory of Phillipson (1992:321) and the field of critical applied linguistics:

"One could surely say without in any way denying the validity of the point they are making that the argument is messy and the analysis is flawed. My own view is that if the issue is right, then we should find ways of supporting it by coherent argument... and to do otherwise is, frankly, to do the issue a grave disservice. For the purposes of ideological exposure, by convenient analysis... of course both the right and the left can engage any deeper issue... if you have faith and commitment, you will always find your witches." (Widdowson 1998b: 150)

Some who reject the linguistic imperialism thesis argue that the global spread of English can be better understood by showing a framework of appropriation, where English is used for local purposes worldwide.^[35] In addition to the Nigerian example cited above (Bisong 1995), the following examples are given:

• Participants in demonstrations in non-English speaking countries often use signs written in English to convey their demands to television audiences worldwide. Sometimes, these individuals may not even understand what is written on the signs they are holding.
• Bobda (1997) shows how Cameroon has shifted away from monocultural, Anglo-Saxon-centric English education methods, gradually appropriating teaching materials to the Cameroonian context. Examples of non-Western topics covered include the laws of the Amir, traditional medicine, and polygamy (ibid: 225). Bobda (ibid: 234) advocates for bicultural education, meaning he wishes to present both Cameroonian and Anglo-American cultures.
• Kramsch & Sullivan (1996) describe how Western educational methodologies and textbooks have been appropriated to fit the local culture in Vietnam.
• The Pakistani textbook Primary Stage English includes lessons such as Pakistan My Country, Our Flag, and Our Great Leader (Malik 1993: 5, 6, 7), which might sound quite hawkish to Western ears. However, establishing a connection between English education, patriotism, and Muslim beliefs within the indigenous culture can be seen as one of the goals of English education. As the chairman of the Punjab Textbook Board (PTBB) candidly stated, "The PTBB, through these textbooks, takes care to inculcate among the students love for Islamic values and awareness to defend the ideological frontiers of their motherland" (Punjab Text Book Board 1997).^[36]

Such internationalisation of English might also open new possibilities for English native speakers. McCabe elaborates:

... after two centuries during which we have exported our language and our customs in hot pursuit of new markets... we now find that our language and our customs have been returned to us, but changed by those others^[37] who can now use them... so that our language and culture discover new possibilities, new contradictions (1985: 45).

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

Phillipson (2006: 359) poses the following questions:

1. Does Anglicisation appear to be independent of globalisation and Americanisation? To assess this, one might consider the literature on World Englishes.
2. Are there ways to counteract inequalities in international communication that avoid privileging fluent English users?
3. If monolingual speakers might fail in the future while multilingual speakers succeed, is striving for a balanced linguistic competence an effective and realistic educational and social goal?
4. Consider whether the situation occurring in Europe is experienced in other contexts, such as the Americas, Africa, or Asia.
5. If globalisation is neither inherently good nor evil, just like all languages, what language policy must be adopted to maintain a balanced languages ecology?^[38]
6. Can you think of a better term than "linguistic imperialism" to describe the role English plays in the current phase of globalisation?

Ferguson (2006:202–3) poses the following questions:

1. Considering the following points, identify a country you know well in which you would like to consider the role of English:
   1. The position of English within the education system (at what grade is English introduced into the school curriculum? At which level – primary, secondary, or tertiary – does it become a medium of instruction? What proportion of the school-age population studies English?).
   2. The position of English in public institutions (e.g., government authorities, press (media), and in business.
   3. The attitude of the general public towards English and the discourse surrounding English in newspapers, magazines, and broadcast media, etc.
2. With reference to your opinion, using the country identified above as a case study, comment on the following:
   1. The impact of English on other languages in society. Is English a threat to other languages? For example, by occupying high functions that might otherwise be fulfilled by some other languages, does English reduce the vitality of other languages?
   2. The effect of English on inequality in society. Do you think English contributes to and exacerbates social inequality in that country? If so, how is this achieved?
   3. The impact of English on the cultural activities of society. Does English contribute to undermining local culture and customs? Do you consider it a vector of Americanisation?
3. "Every nation state now must consider English as an international language in its language policy (Spolsky 2004: 91)." To what extent can language planning and policy at the nation-state level control or resist the spread of English? Do you think it is politically possible to stop English education in state schools in a democratic country?
4. Is there any justification for British or US government agencies or non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to provide aid for English education in developing countries? If you feel such reasons exist, what are they? And if so, what political criteria must be established for providing such aid?

• World Englishes
• Linguistic imperialism
• Multilingualism
• Endangered language
• List of endangered languages
• Anglophile
• Yahya Jammeh