 | This article has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
Linguistic imperialism orlanguage imperialism is defined as "the transfer of a dominantlanguage to other people".[citation needed]
This language transfer, or more accurately, unilateral imposition, is a consequence ofimperialism.[citation needed] The transfer signifiespower, traditionally associated withmilitary power but in the modern context, also encompassingeconomic power. Typically, aspects of the dominantculture aretransferred alongside the language. Geographically, while hundreds of Europe'sindigenous languages function asofficial (state) languages inEurasia, non-indigenous imperial (European) languages serve this role almost exclusively in the "Rest of the World".[1] In contemporary discourse, linguistic imperialism may also be examined within the framework ofinternational development. It influences the criteria by which organizations such as theInternational Monetary Fund and theWorld Bank assess the reliability and value of structural adjustment loans, often reflecting perspectives commonly emphasized in English-language discourse rather than a neutral stance (linguistic relativism).[2]
Since the early 1990s, linguistic imperialism has garnered significant academic attention withinapplied linguistics. Notably,Robert Phillipson's 1992 publication,Linguistic Imperialism, stimulated considerable debate regarding the phenomenon's advantages and disadvantages. Phillipson's research identified historical critiques of linguistic imperialism, including those fromNazi Germany concerning theBritish Council[3] (at a time when European aristocracy increasingly adopted English), andSoviet analyses characterizingEnglish as the language of worldcapitalism andworld domination.[4] In this context, criticism of English as a global language is frequently associated withanti-globalism.
Linguistic imperialism is a form oflinguicism which benefits and grants power to the dominating/oppressing language and its speakers. As summarized by linguistsHeath Rose andJohn Conama, Dr. Phillipson argues that the defining characteristics of linguistic imperialism are:[5][6]
Although it is not easy to determine the intentions of specific policies which have led to linguicism, some scholars believe that intent can be proven by observing whether imperialist practices are continued once theirsociolinguistic, sociological, psychological, political, and educational harm of other languages are made aware.[7][8][9]
The impacts of colonization on linguistic traditions vary based on the form of colonization experienced: trader, settler or exploitation.[10] Congolese-American linguistSalikoko Mufwene describes trader colonization as one of the earliest forms of European colonization. In regions such as the western coast of Africa as well as the Americas, trade relations between European colonizers and indigenous peoples led to the development ofpidgin languages.[10] Some of these languages, such as Delaware Pidgin andMobilian Jargon, were based on Native American languages, while others, such asNigerian Pidgin andCameroonian Pidgin, were based on European ones.[11] As trader colonization proceeded mainly via these hybrid languages, rather than the languages of the colonizers, scholars like Mufwene contend that it posed little threat to indigenous languages.[11]
Trader colonization was often followed by settler colonization, where European colonizers settled in these colonies to build new homes.[10] Hamel, a Mexican linguist, argues that "segregation" and "integration" were two primary ways through which settler colonists engaged with aboriginal cultures.[12] In countries such as Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, and those in theCaribbean, segregation and genocide decimated indigenous societies.[12] Widespread death due to war and illness caused many indigenous populations to lose theirindigenous languages.[10] In contrast, in countries that pursued policies of "integration", such as Mexico,Guatemala and the Andean states, indigenous cultures were lost as aboriginal tribes mixed with colonists.[12] In these countries, the establishment of new European orders led to the adoption of colonial languages in governance and industry.[10] In addition, European colonists also viewed the dissolution of indigenous societies and traditions as necessary for the development of a unifiednation state.[12] This led to efforts to destroy tribal languages and cultures: in Canada and the United States, for example, Native children were sent to boarding schools such as Col. Richard Pratt'sCarlisle Indian Industrial School.[10][13] Today, in countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia, which were once settler colonies, indigenous languages are spoken by only a small minority of the populace.
Mufwene also draws a distinction between settler colonies and exploitation colonies. In the latter, the process of colonization was focused on the extraction of raw materials needed in Europe.[10] As a result, Europeans were less invested in their exploitation colonies, and few colonists planned to build homes in these colonies. As a result, indigenous languages were able to survive to a greater extent in these colonies compared to settler colonies.[10] In exploitation colonies, colonial languages were often only taught to a small local elite. During the period ofBritish rule in India, for example,Lord Macaulay highlighted the need for "... a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions who govern... a class of persons, Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in my opinion, in morals and in intellect" in his now-famous "Macaulay minutes", which were written in support of theEnglish Education Act of 1835.[14] The linguistic differences between the local elite and other locals exacerbated class stratification, and also increased inequality in access to education, industry and civic society in postcolonial states.[10]
InLinguistic Imperialism, Robert Henry Phillipson defines English linguistic imperialism as "the dominance of English... asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages."[15] English is often called a worldwide "lingua franca", but Phillipson argues that when its dominance leads to alinguicide, it can be more aptly titled a "linguafrankensteinia"[vague] by his view.[16]
Phillipson's theory supports the historic spread of English as an international language and that language's continued dominance, particularly inpostcolonial settings such as Wales, Scotland, Ireland, India, Pakistan, Uganda, Zimbabwe, etc., but also increasingly in "neo-colonial" settings such as continentalEurope. His theory draws mainly onJohan Galtung'simperialism theory,Antonio Gramsci's theory, and in particular on his notion ofcultural hegemony.[16]
A central theme of Phillipson's theory is the complex hegemonic processes[clarification needed] which, he asserts, continue to sustain the pre-eminence of English in the world today. His book analyzes theBritish Council's use of rhetoric to promote English, and discusses key tenets of Englishapplied linguistics and English-language-teaching methodology. These tenets hold that:
According to Phillipson, those who promote English—organizations such as the British Council, theIMF and theWorld Bank, and individuals such as operators of English-language schools—use three types of argument:
Other arguments for English are:
Another theme in Phillipson's work is "linguicism"—the kind ofprejudice which can lead toendangered languages becoming extinct or losing their local eminence due to the rise and competing prominence of English.[16]
In theRoman Empire,Latin—originally the language of a limited region in central Italy—was imposed first on the rest of Italy and later on parts of Europe, largely displacing local languages, while inRoman Africa Latin was dominant only until it and the native languages were displaced byArabization.
The English language during the Middle Ages was an object of linguistic imperialism by the French language, particularly following theNorman Conquest. For hundreds of years, French orAnglo-Norman was the language of administration (seeLaw French) and therefore a language of higher status in England. Latin remained the tongue of church and learning. Although many words introduced by the Normans are today indistinguishable by most English-speakers from native Germanic words, later-learnedloanwords, copied from Latin or French may "sound more cultured" to a native English-speaker.
French has also expanded. Languages such asOccitan,Breton,Basque,Catalan andCorsican have been slighted in France. This process, known asFrancization, often causes resistance amongst minority peoples, leading to demands for independence. Examples of this can still be found inBreton nationalism and in theFlanders' Flemish Movement in Belgium.
Following the establishment of theHoly Roman Empire over much of present-day Germany and Central Europe, the German language and its dialects became the preferred language of many Central-European nobility. With varying success, German spread across much of Central and Eastern Europe as a language of trade and status. This ended with World War II (See alsoGermanization.).
In Italy there is a situation similar to the French one, with Italian that has expanded at the expense of languages such asSardinian,Sicilian,Ladin,Venetian andFriulan, while languages such as German (inSouth Tyrol) or French (inAosta Valley), historically persecuted, are now co-official in those regions (See alsoItalianization).
Portuguese and Spanish colonization made these languages prevalent in South America and in parts of Africa and Asia (thePhilippines,Macau, and for a short timeFormosa). In Spain, Spanish spread and was imposed over other languages, becoming the only official language of the state from the 18th to the 20th century. It was labelled "the companion of the Empire" byAntonio de Nebrija (1492) in the introduction to hisGramática de la lengua castellana.
Russian linguistic imperialism can be seen inBelarus both in the former dispute overthe name of the country (Belarus vs Belorussia) and in the common spelling of the name of their president. The English transcription of his name is the Russian form,Alexander Lukashenko, instead of the Belarusian form, Alyaksandr Lukashenka.
In post-independenceIndia, there were attempts to makeHindi as the sole official language which was vehemently opposed by various provinces, particularly by the state ofTamil Nadu (see alsoHindi imposition).[17]
Anatolia had similar linguistic diversity when it was ruled by small native states. Under thePersian andHellenistic empires, the tongue of the conqueror served as thelingua franca. The indigenousAnatolian languages disappeared.
In the Far East, Africa and the Americas, regional languages have been or are being coercively replaced or slighted—Tibetan and regional Chinese varieties byMandarin Chinese,Ainu andRyukyuan by Japanese,Quechua andMesoamerican languages by Spanish,Malayo-Polynesian languages byMalay (incl.Indonesian),Philippine languages byFilipino and so on. Arabization has eliminated many indigenous Berber languages in North Africa and restrictedCoptic to use as aliturgical language byCoptic Christian Orthodox andCoptic Catholic Churches.
Many scholars have participated in lively discussions of Phillipson's claims. Alan Davies, for instance, envisions the ghost of Phillipson haunting the Department of Applied Linguistics in Edinburgh:
'Round up the usual suspects', he cries, outing those who have pretended all these years merely to teach applied linguistics, but who have really been plotting with the British Council to take over the world.[18]
For Davies, two cultures inhabit linguistic imperialism: one, a culture ofguilt ("colonies should never have happened"); the other, that of romantic despair ("we shouldn't be doing what we are doing"). Rajagopalan goes a step farther and maintains that Phillipson's book has led to a guilt complex amongEnglish language learning and teaching (ELT) professionals.[19]
Davies also argues that Phillipson's claims are notfalsifiable: what "if the dominated... wanted to adopt English and continue to want to keep it? Phillipson's unfalsifiable answer must be that they don't, they can't, they've been persuaded against their better interests."[20] It has thus been argued that Phillipson's theory is patronizing in its implication that developing countries lack independent decision-making capacity (to adopt or not to adopt ELT). In the context ofNigeria, Bisong holds that people in the "periphery" use English pragmatically—they send their children to English-language schools precisely because they want them to grow up multilingual. Regarding Phillipson, Bisong maintains that "to interpret such actions as emanating from people who are victims of Centre linguistic imperialism is to bend sociolinguistic evidence to suit a preconceived thesis".[21] If English should be abolished because it is foreign, Bisong argues, then Nigeria itself would also have to be dissolved, because it was conceived as a colonial structure.
Furthermore, the assumption that the English language itself is imperialistic has come under attack.Henry Widdowson has argued that "there is a fundamental contradiction in the idea that the language of itself exerts hegemonic control: namely that if this were the case, you would never be able to challenge such control".[22] Additionally, the idea that the promotion of English necessarily implies a demotion of local languages has been challenged. Holborrow points out that "not all Englishes in the centre dominate, nor are all speakers in theperiphery equally discriminated against".[23]Hiberno-English orNew Zealand English or evenEngland's regional dialects such asCornish English, for instance, could be regarded as a non-dominant centre variety of English.
Some scholars believe that English's dominance is not due to specific language policies, but rather as a side-effect of the spread of English-speaking colonists through colonization and globalization.[24][25]
Thus it could be argued that, while those who follow Phillipson see choices about language as externally imposed, the other camp sees them as personal choices.[26]
Those who support the arguments favoring the existence of linguistic imperialism claim that arguments against it are often advanced bymonolingual native-speakers of English who may see the current status of English as a fact worthy of celebration.[citation needed]
Those who see the increasing spread of English in the world as a worrying development (which lowers the status of local and regional languages as well as potentially undermining or eroding cultural values) are likely to be more receptive to Phillipson's views.Alastair Pennycook,Suresh Canagarajah,Adrian Holliday andJulian Edge fall into this group and are described ascritical applied linguists.
However,Henry Widdowson’s remarks oncritical discourse analysis may also be applied to the critical applied linguists:
It ought surely to be possible to say that an argument is confused, or an analysis flawed, without denying the justice of the cause they support. My view would be that if a case is just then we should look for ways of supporting it by coherent argument... And I would indeed argue that to do otherwise is to do a disservice to the cause. For the procedures of ideological exposure by expedient analysis... can, of course be taken up to further any cause, right wing as well as left.... If you have the conviction and commitment, you will always find your witch.[27]
InIreland, the issue of de-anglicising the influence of English has been a topic of debate in the country even beforeindependence.[28][29] An argument for de-anglicisation was delivered before the Irish National Literary Society in Dublin, 25 November 1892; "When we speak of 'The Necessity for De-Anglicising the Irish Nation', we mean it, not as a protest against imitating what is best in theEnglish people, for that would be absurd, but rather to show the folly of neglecting what is Irish, and hastening to adopt, pell-mell, and indiscriminately, everything that is English, simply because it is English."[28]
According toGhil'ad Zuckermann, "Native tongue title and language rights should be promoted. The government ought to defineAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander vernaculars as official languages of Australia. We must change the linguistic landscape of Whyalla and elsewhere. Signs should be in both English and the local indigenous language. We ought to acknowledge intellectual property of indigenous knowledge including language, music and dance."[30]
Some who reject the idea of linguistic imperialism argue that the global spread of English is better understood in the framework ofappropriation[31]—that English is used around the worldfor local purposes. In addition to the example of Nigeria, other examples have been given:
Such an "internationalization" of English may also offer new possibilities to English native-speakers. McCabe elaborates:
...whereas for two centuries we exported our language and our customs in hot pursuit of... fresh markets, we now find that our language and our customs are returned to us but altered so that they can be used by others... so that our own language and culture discover new possibilities, fresh contradictions.[39]
In Eurasia, indigenous languages and scripts are used in official capacity, while the same function is fulfilled almost exclusively by non-indigenous (post/colonial) European languages in the Rest of the world. [...] This linguistic imperialismpar excellence is a long-lasting and pernicious legacy of European (western) colonialism.
{{cite book}}:|journal= ignored (help)the elimination of English influence, language, customs, etc.