Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1. Linguistic Imperialism
1.1 The spread of English The stated aim of Phillipsons 1992 book Linguistic Imperialism was to set out how English became so dominant and why, and to examine the role ELT pedagogy had in contributing to it becoming the international language par excellence in which the fate of most of the worlds millions is decided. (Phillipson 1992 p.6) While many writers had tackled the question before no one had done so from the type of critical, socio-linguistic standpoint taken by Phillipson. Whereas for David Crystal, and other commentators, the rise of English is a largely neutral phenomenon, achieved by repeatedly finding itself at the right place at the right time (Crystal 1997, p.110) for Phillipson, the spread of English is no happy accident and his book is no dispassionate examination of the natural evolution of a language. According to Phillipson the English language has been, and continues to be, propelled by the deliberate manipulation of economic, political, intellectual and social forces in order to legitimate, effectuate and reproduce an unequal division of power and resources. (Phillipson 1992 p.47) and create a culture of what Phillipson calls, linguistic imperialism. For Phillipson the ELT industry and ELT pedagogy are not innocent bystanders in the rise of English language hegemony but are complicit in a neo-colonial agenda that he sees as driving English to its current position. He contends that the popular view of the spread of English as an incontrovertible boon is misplaced and that the discourse that currently ties learning English to progress and prosperity is in fact
Page 1
Page 2
The monolingual fallacy: that English is best taught without reference to the learners native language
The native speaker fallacy: that the best teacher is a speaker from one of the centre countries
Page 4
Page 5
Phillipson himself points out that There is a sense in which we are inescapably committed to the ethnocentricity of our own world view, however much insight and understanding we have of other cultures. (Phillipson, p.48.) It is not entirely clear though that Phillipson accepts that his view can only ever be that of an Oxford educated, white male from a former colonial power, with all the emotional and intellectual baggage that accompanies this.
Page 7
2. Criticisms of Phillipson
2.1 The world is too complex Perhaps the most common criticism of Phillipsons work is that in trying to present a macroscopic treatment of the issue he ultimately presents a picture that is too remote, too simple and too theoretical to cover the complexities that underlie each individual context. Suresh Canagarajah takes issue with Phillipsons remoteness, claiming his perspective is too impersonal and global... missing the individual, the local, the particular. (Canagarajah, p.41) The result for Canagarajah is that there is little sense of the classroom with Phillipson failing to show how linguistic inequalities are effected, propagated, or played out in instructional contexts in the periphery. (ibid, p.42) In adopting such an impersonal perspective Phillipson is unable to consider how, in fact, English could be adopted to empower local communities and resist the influence of the centre. Adopting a more micro-societal perspective would, according to Canagarajah, not only allow Phillipson to take account of the lived culture and everyday experience of periphery communities [but would] also help qualify some of his claims. (ibid, p.42) Phillipsons failure to engage on this more detailed level leaves him open to the accusation that that his arguments show a failure to appreciate fully the complexities of the situation (Bisong, p.131). While these criticisms may have some justification they miss-place what Phillipson is trying to achieve, which as Phillipson clearly states at the beginning of Linguistic Imperialism is to situate ELT in a macro-societal theoretical perspective (Phillipson 1992 p.2) Indeed it is Phillipsons contention that his own analysis can probe
Page 8
Page 10
In revisiting linguistic imperialism Margie Berns et al report that they spent considerable time sorting through their negative reactions trying to understand why even those among us most likely to be in sympathy with his position were offended by his tone and as a result distracted from the story he wanted to tell. (Berns et al 1998 p.274) In some ways this may seem unfortunate and irrelevant but Phillipsons apparent refusal to engage critically with subsequent debate is a significant shortcoming in his work and points to an underlying concern about his intentions. This is compounded by Phillipsons apparent awareness of the fact that some of the language of Linguistic Imperialism is not best suited to reasonable dialogue. On being asked why a later work was less confrontational in its outlook than linguistic Imperialism Phillipson responded: I feared that if started waving around labels like linguistic imperialism early on, then I would not enter into dialogue with the policy3
At various times he refers to English as a lingua Frankensteina, describing it as a killer language and accusing it of causing linguistic genocide.
4
Monolingualism is an illness, a disease which should be eradicated as soon as possible, because it is dangerous for world peace Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson 1989 p.469)
Page 11
While such criticism may not impact directly on his central thesis it does point to a shortcoming in his work which is its overall entrenched negativity and lack of a suggested way forward. Phillipson is happy to denounce the spread of English (and its accompanying culture) in the strongest possible terms and yet is either not inclined or unable to suggest a way forward. While Phillipsons concerns are important, they still seem to leave us with the question of what to do pedagogically with English. (Pennycook, 1994, p.308)
Page 12
While Crystal acknowledges that there are or will be new Englishes it is not clear that he sees this, in the same way as Braj Kachru and other pluralists. For Crystal the current varieties of English are simply those native speaking countries and the most obvious example of a new English to Crystal is the difference between American and British dialects. Although Crystal recognises that international varieties of English express national identities and are a way of reducing the conflict between intelligibility and identity (Crystal, p.134) he does not see the proliferation of English as a politicised issue, somewhat trivially likening new Englishes to the dialects we recognise within our own country. (Crystal p.133)5 Ultimately Crystal expects to see the rise of what he calls World Standard Spoken English (WSSE), but it seems he thinks WSSE will be merely a form of American English that will sit comfortably next to a speakers native language. For Crystal it is a straightforward, win-win situation with no political or ideological baggage: The concept of WSSE does not replace a national dialect: it supplements it. [People] have a dialect in which they can continue
5
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
4. Conclusion
Whatever ones opinion about Linguistic Imperialism it is now accepted that it opened up debate about the socio-linguistic and ethical impact of the spread of English. As Henry Widdowson and others have pointed out Phillipsons work initiated debate and even those who opposed his views felt obliged to look more critically into the issues it raised in such a provocative fashion. (Widdowson, 2005, p.362) Although similar concerns had been aired previously in the field of sociolinguistics Phillipson brought the discussion to a much broader audience and specifically that of ELT where his open anti-imperialist stance starkly uncovered English teaching agents complacency about the divisive effect of their policies and the alienation that colonial attitudes have engendered. (Holborrow, 1999, p.75-76)
Page 17
Bibliography Brutt - Griffler, J. (2002) World English: AStudy of Its Development . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Canagarajah, S. (1999) Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching, Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress. Canagarajah, S. (1999b) On EFL teachers, awareness and agency. ELT Journal 53(3) 207-214.
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21