English Language Spread in Local

Contexts: Turkey, Latvia and France

Hacer Hande Uysal, Lia Plakans and Svetlana Dembovskaya
Teaching and Learning, Foreign Language and ESL Education,
University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA

In the discussion of English language spread policies, scholars have taken various
viewpoints. One approach concerns the diffusion-of-English and language ecology
paradigms, which distinguish externally dominant English spread and resistance to
this hegemony. Others have questioned this approach, and proposed that English
­language spread is not limited to external control, but that local forces also play a role
in the spread. These perspectives challenge English language teachers and others to
look at the impact of the local situation on the spread of English. This paper discusses
English language spread in education at primary school level in Turkey, Latvia and
France. The description is based on a review of research on English spread in these
three countries as well as analysis of documents such as class enrolments, policy in
education, constitutional legislation and reports by ministries of education. Despite
some differences in policy in the three countries, they are all experiencing increases
in the study of English in primary education. The paper concludes with findings on
the applicability of the diffusion-of-English and language ecology perspectives on
English language spread in local EFL contexts.

doi: 10.2167/cilp105.0

Keywords:  English language spread, language-in-education policy, language ecology,

language diffusion, foreign language teaching, Latvia, France, Turkey

The spread of the English language stands as a significant issue in the macro
socio-political structure that influences current thinking in language planning
(Ricento, 2000). Scholars have taken various perspectives in their attempts to
explain English language spread and its effects. One approach concerns the
­diffusion-of-English and language ecology paradigms (Phillipson & Skutnabb-
Kangas, 1996; Tsuda, 1994, 1997), which describe English language spread in
terms of externally dominant English spread and resistance to this hegemony.
Others have criticised this approach for being too simplistic (Brutt-Griffler,
2002; Davies, 1996), and proposed that English language spread is not limited
to external control, but local situations may encourage the spread.
This discussion challenges English language teachers and others to look at
the impact English spread has on local perspectives. Canagarajah (2005) suggests
that we should start exploring knowledge in local instead of global contexts, 
to better understand the global-local negotiations. Phillipson (1992: 166) sets
forth a gap in the research into English language spread:
Cross-cultural studies have never formed part of the core of ELT [English
Language Teaching] as an academic discipline, nor even any principled

1466-4208/07/02  192-16  $20.00/0  2007 H.H. uysal et al.

current issues in language planning Vol. 8, No. 2, 2007

192
English Language Spreads in Local Contexts 193

consideration of what educational implications might follow from an

awareness of this [cross-cultural] aspect of English linguistic imperialism.
After briefly characterising theories of English spread, this paper will
­ rovide a description of the situation in three countries: Turkey, Latvia and
p
France. Kaplan and Baldauf (1997: 285) argue that ‘acquisition planning is a
formal mechanism for language spread’. Therefore, we will review the situa-
tion of English language in primary education, focusing specifically on 
three areas described as essential considerations in language-in-education
planning: curriculum, personnel and community. This description will be
­critiqued mainly in terms of the diffusion-of-English and language ecology
paradigms.

English Language Spread

The observation that English is spreading is not so controversial and is sub-
stantiated by many scholars (Crystal, 1997; Kachru, 1987; Lambrie & Quell, 1997;
Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, 1996, 1997; Widdowson, 1997). However,
­different definitions of spread have been provided by scholars. While Phillipson
(1992) has approached English in terms of linguistic imperialism, Quirk (1988)
has added demographic and econo-cultural to the imperial reasons behind
English spread. According to Quirk, demographic spread results from migration
of English speakers around the world, and econo-cultural spread is caused by
the economic and cultural/intellectual role of English. Brutt-Griffler (2002), on
the other hand, defines language spread as acquisition of English as a second
language by different speech communities, which she calls macroacquisition. She
views macroacquisition as a linguistic process of language spread and change
through which both local and external forces influence and change each other,
leading to formation of world Englishes.
According to Phillipson (1994), in addition to the earlier English spread due
to colonialism, the United States and Britain further promoted the spread of
English through government agencies such as the British Council, the former
United States Information Agency (USIA), and the Fulbright programme. 
In addition, professional associations such as Teachers of English to Speakers 
of Other Languages (TESOL) and the International Association of Teachers of
English as a Foreign Language (IATEFL) have facilitated the spread of English;
moreover, English has been imposed implicitly through ‘marketing English as
the language of economic and technological progress’ and ‘international under-
standing’ (Phillipson, 1994: 18).
Phillipson has been criticised for a ‘conspiracy theory’ in which all motives 
for English spread come from external forces and are national, political and
economic (Davies, 1996: 86). The people in local contexts were not given agency
in the spread of English; therefore, this view has been found limiting. According
to Brutt-Griffler (2002), millions of L2 learners learn English in their own coun-
tries from non-English teachers to speak with other non-native speakers; there-
fore, these local communities have both spread and changed English. Although
these criticisms are compelling, as Phillipson (1994, 1997) pointed out, linguistic
imperialism has not been studied in specific contexts through analysis of
­language planning and policy (Phillipson, 1994: 21).
194 current issues in language planning

Therefore, the present study considers linguistic imperialism in local contexts

through the two paradigms discussed by Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas
(1996) and first presented in the field of communication by Tsuda (1994, 1997).
According to Tsuda, two forces dominate socio-cultural change around the
world: globalisation and ethnic identity/unity. The first, diffusion-of-English, is
characterised by capitalism, science and technology, and a monolingual view 
of modernisation and internationalisation. The second, ecology-of-language, is
characterised by linguistic diversity, multilingualism and foreign language
learning. Examining these forces or paradigms in terms of language, Phillipson
and Skutnabb-Kangas (1996) claim that they represent two policy options in
English spread. In their opinion, language ecology should be behind language
policy and ‘an immediate way of contributing to this effort is by building on
Tsuda’s (1994) dichotomy when analysing language policy and by working to
promote a healthy and just ecology of language’ (Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas,
1996: 447). However, another conceptualisation of language ecology is often
presented in language planning which is not directly related to English spread
but does encompass some of what Tsuda delineated. This ­ paradigm sees
­language ecology as an eco-system which includes majority and minority
­language as well as political and ecological borders. Kaplan and Baldauf
describe the need to consider language ecology: ‘It is important to remember, in
thinking about language ecology, that more is evoked than language … The
point is that language planners must go beyond language itself to the societal
values and practices underlying language itself’ (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997: 297).

English language spread in local contexts

Considering the local context is critical in language planning and language-
in-education (Corson, 2001; Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997). Brutt-Griffler (2002: 119)
describes three functional settings which have led to the spread of English:
English as a National Language (ENL), English as a Second Language (ESL),
and English as a Foreign Language (EFL). Among these different contexts, the
countries in this article, Turkey, Latvia and France, fit into the third category.
While the three can be grouped as EFL, their local contexts are very different.
France is one of the oldest nation-states and a former imperial power with a
strong view of the place of its own language in the world; Turkey has had an
80-year modernisation project and is keen to be accepted by Europe; Latvia is
coming out of a different situation of linguistic imperialism and fighting for
recognition of its own language. These three countries, representing different
historical and cultural backgrounds and different national and foreign language
planning experiences, will provide a rich picture to understand the interplay of
global and local forces. In addition to recognising the diversity of EFL settings,
giving them individual as well as comparative attention will add to the field
since much of the discussion in English spread has focused on post-colonial
contexts in Africa and Asia.

Turkey and its Language Situation

An ongoing struggle has existed between the forces of nationalism and
­ odernisation since 1923, when Turkey was founded as a democratic nation-
m
state following the collapse of the multinational Ottoman Empire (Akarsu, 2000;
English Language Spreads in Local Contexts 195

Doğançay-Aktuna, 1995). Turkey has always had to deal with dilemmas­

between past and future, West and East, and traditional values and the demands
of a rapidly changing global and industrial world (Akarsu, 2000; Kinzer, 2001).
This situation has caused an identity crisis and unclear goals affecting educa-
tion and language policies.
In terms of general language planning, the country went through a very
extensive language reform during the years 1920–1930 in order to achieve a
new national identity, language unity, and modernisation. But it was not until
after World War II that English started to become influential, with the increasing­
language contact and closer ties to the United States, international aid for
­development, and advances in trade and technology. In the years 1950–1970,
the spread was state planned and controlled through education, but since the
1980s the spread of English has continued in both a planned and unplanned
way (Doğançay-Aktuna, 1998: 28–29).
With new globalisation tendencies, English started to function as a key to
better career opportunities and higher living standards and thus became very pop-
ular (Konig, 1990). This caused a great demand not only for intensive English
education, but also education in English at all levels, especially by parents 
from higher socio-economic backgrounds in urban settings (Buyukkantarcioglu,
2004: 42; Konig, 2004).
British and American organisations also played a role in the spread of English
in Turkey. The British Council and the former USIA have offered English
­language, International English Language Testing System (IELTS) and Test of
English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) preparation courses and cultural activi-
ties, as well as teacher development activities through libraries and information
centres. However, these activities have been limited to a few urban cities and
thus have affected only a small portion of the population.
Primary foreign language education in Turkey: English spread
In terms of curriculum, the Turkish Ministry of National Education has played
an important role in English spread by determining the foreign ­languages to be
taught, or not taught. Its decisions resulted in the gradual elimination of foreign
languages other than English from education. First, Arabic and Persian were
banned in 1924 and it was decided that a Western language (French, English or
German) should be taught, with the goal of secularisation (Bear, 1985). From the
1960s, Arabic was allowed again, but only in religious high schools’ curricula.
The increasing dominance of English in education can be seen in Table 1.
Then in 1988, foreign language classes, which used to be compulsory, became
only elective in high schools. German and French especially suffered from this
situation and they were almost eliminated from the curricula, leaving the arena
almost completely to English. Already existing German and French teachers
were appointed as Turkish teachers (Ilkhan, 2002), and no new teaching
­positions for French and German have opened since then.
In 1997, a major education reform in primary education took place in Turkey,
increasing compulsory primary education from five to eight years between the
ages of six and 14. It was also decided that English should become a compul-
sory foreign language in primary education, starting from Grade 4 instead of
Grade 6 (MEB, 1997) – two hours a week in Grades 4 and 5, and four hours from
Grade 6 to Grade 8 (MEB, 2005). At first glance, this policy regarding the earlier
196 current issues in language planning

Table 1    Foreign language enrolment in Turkey

Total enrolment in foreign languages (grades 1–12)

Year English German French Arabic

1950–51 48,434 5,612 79,208 —

1960–61 217,926 30,504 155,824 4,548

1970–71 840,848 116,124 293,057 49,308

1980–81 1,540,138 303,734 322,245 216,864

1985–86 1,552,189 364,882 292,415

Source: Demircan (1988: 102)

introduction of English instruction in Grade 4 seems to hold with the language

diffusion perspective.
However, by merging all the different types of middle (Grades 6–9) schools
such as Anatolian,1 vocational and religious schools under one uniform primary­
education, this new law has almost ended early English language immersion
and English medium education that some privileged state schools had offered
starting from Grade 6 (MEB-Baskent University, 2002: 8). Instead of English
medium education, which was seen as a hindrance to mother tongue develop-
ment, Turkish was emphasised as the only language of instruction at the
­primary level. This change is consistent with language ecology.
Furthermore, with recent attempts to comply with European education
standards, which emphasise multiculturalism and multilingualism, a second
language option was offered in primary education starting from Grade 6
(Dulger, 2004). The second language choices offered by the Ministry of
National Education were German, Chinese, French, English, Spanish, Italian,
Japanese and Russian (MEB, 2005). This seemed to indicate a further shift 
in government policies towards support for language ecology. However,
­according to Genc (1999: 307), at primary level, 98.4% of students were learning­
English, and only 1.6% of the students were taking German and French as the
second foreign language. No data have been available for teaching of other
languages yet.
As for teachers of English in Turkey, due to the aforementioned new law
starting English at earlier ages, the already huge shortage of English language
teachers is expected to increase greatly. The Ministry of National Education has
started a semi-distance education-learning project to prepare English language
teachers coordinated by the Open University (Toktar, 2000). This project is also
supported by EFL professionals from the British Council and the former USIA
who were collaborating with the Ministry of National Education (US Department
of State, 2002). However, despite these efforts, Haznedar (2003) found 
that English language teachers had no familiarity with the educational needs of
primary school children, and teachers reported that they have not received any
specific courses on young learners.
English Language Spreads in Local Contexts 197

In-service education of English teachers is even more limited and problem-

atic. Due to low status, low pay, and lack of a reward and punishment system
for public school teachers, teachers were found not to attend in-service pro-
grammes in Turkey (Fretwell & Wheeler, 2001; Ozer, 2004). The cooperation
between the Ministry of National Education and foreign professionals in teacher
education supports a language diffusion perspective; however, the lack of well-
equipped English language teachers in primary education is likely to hinder the
diffusion of English.
Community concern is another important area to discuss while considering
English spread in Turkey. Ultimately, English is considered necessary, but some
groups view English medium education as dangerous for Turkish culture and
language, as education and publications in English are popular in academia
(Doğançay-Aktuna & Kiziltepe, 2005; Konig, 1990). Another community concern­
is that English medium schools create an elite class that adopts the cultural
values of English-speaking countries and becomes alienated from the realities
and problems of their own country (Duman, 1997), which contributes to a
­growing social gap (Konig, 1990). Some perceive this as an act of neo-colonialism­
which will make Turkey dependent on developed countries (Duman, 1997;
Sinanoglu, 2005). Some also perceive early exposure to English medium educa-
tion as a violation of children’s right to be educated in their mother tongue
(Kilimci, 1989).
Although the new laws almost ended English medium education at the
­primary level in public schools, the discussions did not end because many
­parents, the private sector and scholars demand not only extensive English
­lessons, but also education in English. They believe English medium education
is the most successful method to learn English in Turkey (Alptekin, 1989; Guclu,
2002, 2004a, 2004b).
In conclusion, Turkey is not easily categorised in either the English diffusion
or the language ecology paradigm. State policies seem to be contradictory in
some areas because, while the government is working with British and
American organisations to improve English education and helping its further
spread, it is also passing laws hampering English medium education. While
English is seen as a key to modernisation and Westernisation, its rapid spread
was seen as a threat to the purity and status of Turkish and has caused negative
attitudes and policy making. However, recently Turkey has turned its face to
the West, wanting to become a member of the European Union. Therefore, a
series of radical reform movements has started in education, reflecting a shift
towards an ecology ­ paradigm by offering multiple foreign languages rather
than diffusion.

Latvia and its Language Situation

In order to discuss English language spread in Latvia, the history and
l­ anguage situation of the country must be considered. In simple terms, Latvia
has only experienced two brief periods of independence: from 1918 to 1940, and
from 1991 to the present. Other than these two periods, Latvia has been ruled/
occupied by Sweden, the Russian Empire, Germany and the Soviet Union. This
history of occupation weighs heavily on the issue of language planning and
policy in Latvia.
198 current issues in language planning

Since the early 1990s, language laws have been established in an attempt 
to unite the country by means of a common language, Latvian (Jubilis, 2001).
The language laws have been implemented through citizenship requirements,
language testing and acquisition planning (Ozolins, 1994). Protests and debates
regarding this legislation have focused on the state language in opposition to
languages native to ethnic groups in Latvia, but particularly to the Russian-
speaking population (Druviete, 1997; Ozolins, 1999). Despite the focus on these
language laws and their impact on Latvia’s future, they have not addressed
English spread.
The strength of the spread of English in Latvia is hard to determine in terms
of hard data; however, a few articles and some census figures provide the
­general picture that English is becoming a dominant foreign language
(Aronssohn, 2003). In the early days of independence in the 1990s, organisa-
tions such as the former USIA and the British Council were instrumental in
introducing English as a foreign language. The presence of both these external
organisations is still evident but lessening, and the unplanned spread of English
has gained momentum, but has not been discussed in great detail. However, an
article by Valdmanis (1997) focused on the processes determining the future of
the Latvian language: Europeanisation, technology and the media. All of these
will lead to a more dominant role for English in Latvia. Because of this he states:
‘One of the most important planks of education policy should be the principle
of language education’ (Valdmanis, 1997: 4).

Primary foreign language education in Latvia: English spread

English as a foreign language appears in the national curriculum from early
years to higher education. Compulsory education in Latvia consists of two 
pre-primary years at ages 5–6, followed by nine years of basic education (MES,
2004). When Latvia achieved independence, one of the first laws adopted was
the Law on Education (1991). Since then, new laws have been issued in 1998 and
1999, followed by numerous reforms (Eurybase, 2004/2005).
In terms of curriculum, a first foreign language starts in Grade 3, and a second
foreign language in Grade 6. However, some pre-primary programmes also
offer foreign languages (Eurybase, 2004/2005). The choice of a first foreign
­language and second foreign language in Latvia depends on what is offered
and what children/parents decide. However, in general, English dominates. 
A survey by a major Latvian public opinion research centre (Social Correlation
Data Systems, SKDS) found that in 2001, 90.2–90.5% of students enrolled in
English as their first foreign language (cited in Eurybase, 2004/2005). The domi-
nance of English can be seen in student enrolments for early grades, as shown
in Table 2. While these numbers display an overall increase in enrolment in
­foreign languages as well as a variety of languages taught, English holds a clear
position as the top foreign language studied. Yet with the entry of Latvia into
the European Union in 2004, interest is increasing in learning foreign languages
other than English (Baltic Times, 2004). However, the 2004 census shows a drop
in English as a foreign language enrolment (see Table 2), but not a corresponding­
rise in enrolments in the other languages offered.
The sources of teachers have been both local and through importing from
abroad. Since 1991, programmes to train English teachers have expanded to
English Language Spreads in Local Contexts 199

Table 2    Foreign and ethnic minority language enrolment in public schools in Latvia
(top seven languages)

Enrolment in grades 1–4

Year English Russian German French Polish Hebrew Estonian

1997 42,225 6042 7799 414 239 136 48

1999 54,118 2646 3801 481 202 124 64

2001 61,875 1359 1975 411 171 152 65

2004 46,369 798 1411 346 114 100 66

Source: Adapted from Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia (n.d.)

two major universities and several teacher institutes (European Centre for
Modern Languages, 1996; Eurybase, 2004/2005). In addition to pre-service
training, Latvia requires in-service training for teachers of up to 12 hours a year.
Several organisations exist for the training and support of teachers (such as the
Latvian Association for Teachers of English).
In the 1990s, Latvia experienced a lack in the number and qualifications of
English teachers. The British Council (n.d.) reported the following characteris-
tics of EFL classroom teachers in public schools: 10% were regular classroom
teachers (not specialising in English), 20% were English language teaching
­specialists and 70% were not qualified teachers but knew English. However, in
2003–2004 the state began requiring that all teachers have higher education, and
those who do not must undergo additional education. Another significant
reform has been planned for 2006–2010 to increase teachers’ salaries to make
salaries equivalent to the average wage in the public sector as opposed to the
current salary, which is comparable to the minimum wage in the public sector
(Eurybase, 2004/2005).
A further influence on language in education is community attitudes.
According to Ozolins (1994), Latvians are concerned about the potential domi-
nance of English, but the specifics of this concern have not yet been studied.
Fonzari (1999) points out that in Estonia, which has a somewhat similar situa-
tion, the spread of English is not so much a case of linguistic imperialism, but
more likely a reaction against the Russification of the Soviet period and an urge
to join the West.
The foreign language curriculum in Latvia seems to support a language
ecology perspective. The variety of languages offered suggests ecology as
­students have choices beyond English, both in foreign languages and in ethni-
cally or geographically relevant languages (e.g. Russian, Hebrew, Estonian).
However, the dominance of English as a first choice in language enrolments
and the lack of rewards for teachers may complicate this view. While there is
limited evidence, a slight decrease in English enrolments may suggest that the
pace of this dominance is slowing. In addition, recent reforms to increase
teachers’ salaries could decrease diffusion by encouraging local teachers to
continue in the field.
200 current issues in language planning

France and its Language Situation

France has a long history of being an influential power with a strong national
identity, spreading its own language and cultural values in various parts of the
world. Nowadays, however, English has become a serious competitor to the
position of French in the world. This state of affairs creates a feeling of frustration
in France, which still remembers the glory days of the French state and conse-
quently the French language (Djité, 1995). At the same time many French see
English as a tool necessary for success in the age of globalisation (Prince, 2000).
This results in a number of conflicting forces in the domain of general language
policy and planning, and specifically in the area of language-in-­education plan-
ning with respect to English. For example, a tension is seen in that on the one
hand, there is a wealth of government initiatives to preserve the purity of the
French language, mainly ‘protecting’ it from Anglicisms; e.g. the Bas-Lauriol law
of 1975 (L’Assemblée nationale, 1975) and the Toubon law of 1994 (L’Assemblée
nationale, 1994). On the other hand, however, there is recognition that regulating
people’s expression, let alone punishing them for using Anglicisms, contradicts
the Declaration of the Rights of Man (Ager, 1999; Grigg, 1997).
In this complex context, where different forces are shaping the presence of
English in France, both planned and unplanned, English is nonetheless becom-
ing a dominant foreign language in the French education system.

Primary foreign language education in France: English spread

The first compulsory language (FL1) is introduced in Grade 32 of the primary
school. Further, in Grade 9, students add a second foreign language (FL2),
although an earlier start for the FL2 is supported in Grades 6 and 7.
A new policy introduced in 2002 extends the teaching of one foreign ­language
in primary schools to start in the last grade of the pre-primary school (age 5). 
A complex implementation of this policy will take several years and is divided
into stages, with full implementation by 2010. So far the implementation of 
this policy has resulted in an increase in the percentage of students studying a
foreign language at the primary level; e.g. from 94% of students (in 2002) to 96%
(in 2003) in Grades 4 and 5, and from 24.7% (in 2002) to 55.7% (in 2003) in Grade 3
(Sénat, n.d., question #05464, 2003).
The expansion of early FL education is partially motivated by a comparison
with other European Union countries where FL education starts earlier
(Eurydice, 2001, 2005; Sénat, n.d., question #13955, 2004). This is based on the
arguments on the critical age for language learning (Gaonac’h, 2005), and agrees
with France’s general stance since 1994 of promoting language diversity and
language learning (Ager, 1999). In the 2005 Loi d’Orientation et de Programme de
l’Avenir de l’École (L’Assemblée nationale, 2005), mastery of one foreign ­language
is set as a national priority and a common core subject.
The languages offered in primary school are determined by each specific
Académie (academic administrative unit). The factors contributing to the lan-
guages offered are: geographic proximity of other languages; parental demand
for languages based on their perceived usefulness for the future careers of the
children; and availability of further instruction in that particular language after
primary school.
English Language Spreads in Local Contexts 201

Generally, the idea of including two or three languages in the school curricu-
lum is favourably accepted in France and is actively promoted in the official
rhetoric (e.g. L’Assemblée nationale, 2005; Sénat, 2001, 2003). France also gives
the second largest choice of foreign languages in the European Union after
Great Britain (Eurydice, 2001). However, the large choice and the official rhetoric­
in favour of linguistic diversity do not translate into a large array of languages
actually taught. English has become the first foreign language chosen by the
overwhelming majority of students in the primary school. In 2002–2003, English
was studied in 78.5% of classes in Grades 3–5, German by 16.7% and Italian by
1.3% (Sénat, n.d., question #05464, 2003).
Although linguistic diversity is far from being attained in reality, several
recently introduced initiatives and policy statements have the potential 
to ­produce visible results. For example, if students choose a language other
than English as their FL1, then English is given priority as FL2, which is meant
to promote the choice of other languages as FL1. Also, following a series 
of Franco-German meetings in the autumn of 2004, a number of initiatives
were outlined in order to promote the study of German (Sénat, n.d., question
#16243, 2005).
The Ministry of Education oversees the training and hiring of teachers, and
creates new positions (Steele et al., 1997). The recent foreign language extension
policies created an urgent need for more primary foreign language teachers. 
In order to answer this need, the Ministry of Education created new teaching
positions and suggested to the schools some possible sources for teacher recruit-
ment, such as secondary FL teachers volunteering to teach at the primary level,
individuals certified to teach foreign languages, and native speakers (Sénat, n.d.,
question #36990, 2001).
The attitudes of the local community towards learning English are very
­positive, which can be evidenced by the fact that 78.5% of students chose to
study English in primary school (Sénat, n.d., question #05464, 2003). Learning
English is seen by students and their parents as a way to access information in
English, and to ensure better career and job opportunities. Besides, the fact 
that everybody else is learning English also creates motivation to study this
language, not to be left out (Prince, 2000).
In summary, it seems that France has long adhered to the language ecology
position in its language-in-education policies in public rhetoric, but only
recently it has moved in the direction of concrete measures to promote other
foreign languages. At the same time, English continues to hold the dominant
position as a foreign language at the primary level in France, and it remains to
be seen whether the new linguistic diversity policies will produce significant
results.

The Bigger Picture: English Spread in France, Latvia and Turkey

Interestingly, the interplay of local languages as well as larger political
s­ tructures with English is shaping the language-in-education policies of these
three countries at the primary level. This interaction fits with the notion of
­language ecology put forth in Kaplan and Baldauf (1997). In France, multiple
foreign languages are actively supported in official documents and in rhetoric,
partly as a means to counteract the spread of English, which ousts French from
202 current issues in language planning

its leading position in the international arena. In Latvia, English may be seen as
turning toward the West and the European Union and away from Russian and
the Soviet period. In Turkey, English medium education is seen by part of the
population as a threat to Turkish asserting itself in science and education, and
as an infringement of students’ rights to be educated in their mother tongue.
The enrolment tendencies for foreign languages other than English are
affected by the European Union’s policies, the local context, and the geographi-
cal proximity of other languages. However, English appears to be the only
­language to enjoy a steady increase in enrolments and to occupy the leading
position as a foreign language in all three countries. In both Latvia and France,
English dominates the foreign language curriculum due to students’ and
­parents’ choice, in spite of the official support for multiple languages in schools.
Apart from the official rhetoric, little of consequence is done in order to influ-
ence student choice. Latvia, for example, gives little attention in its legislation to
foreign languages, and France offers more English teaching positions every
year, following student demand. Turkey, in contrast, has taken a very impor-
tant policy stance, which imposes English as the compulsory foreign language
starting at earlier ages, acknowledging the need for modernisation; this places
its policies in the diffusion perspective. However, foreign language education
policies seem to be modified towards the ecology perspective by including
­languages other than English at least in official rhetoric in view of Turkey’s
aspiration to join the European Union.
All three countries experience similar problems that do not allow for the
­optimum realisation of their language-in-education policies: teacher shortages
(in all three countries), lack of rewards and qualified teachers (more so in Latvia
and Turkey), as well as the attitudes of the community and the resulting
­language choice (in Latvia and France). In this context, the contributions of such
agencies as the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (former USIA) and
the British Council become welcome, and are utilised eagerly; however, these
external contributions do not seem to be the major sources of the English
­language spread and diffusion in these countries. Although initially external
forces were effective in English spread, recently the spread is more unplanned
and provoked by local decisions.

Conclusion
Through our brief investigation of English language spread in three different
contexts we have come to the same conceptualisation of the two paradigms as
Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas (1996). The two paradigms can be regarded 
as endpoints of a continuum, yet in reality are not binary oppositions: the 
presence of the features of one does not exclude the presence of the features of
the other.
Generally, the English language education policies of Latvia and France
­gravitate towards the language ecology paradigm. At the same time, some of
the categories from the English language diffusion paradigm also apply, such
as pressure for modernisation, science and technology, and internationalisa-
tion. Turkey’s choice in favour of English diffusion policies are complicated 
by the divided attitudes of the community, with some groups speaking for
­traditional values, for students’ language rights, and for the need to define this
English Language Spreads in Local Contexts 203

country’s national identity. Thus, the situations in these countries are highly
complex at the local level and cannot be easily characterised only as clearly
applying either to a language diffusion paradigm or a language ecology
­paradigm. In other words, many interests and forces from both paradigms
­contribute to English policies locally, and features of both paradigms co-exist
and interact. This might lead to an understanding of the countries from a
­language ecology perspective that fits with the conceptualisation of language
ecology as the eco-system in which languages reside, rather than language
­ecology as a force.
The diffusion–ecology paradigms seem to be more clearly distinguishable
when describing English spread from a perspective external to the countries
affected. We can conclude that being cognisant at the local level of the tension
between these two paradigms is important in language planning and policy
with regard to English language spread, particularly as a means to encourage
discussion and a conscious balance rather than to prescribe one or the other.
However, these paradigms do not seem to be very useful to describe the
­linguistic effects of English on native languages and the effects of local teaching
situations on English creating varieties of world Englishes. In addition, contrary­
to Phillipson’s (1997) claims about the hegemonic expansion of English in
Europe resulting in linguistic imperialism, at least at primary level in these
three countries, English spread did not seem to amount to linguistic imperialism­
or linguistic marginalisation of native languages.
A limitation of this paper is that it examines English language spread focusing­
on only one level of education – primary. A close study of all levels of education
in the areas of curriculum, personnel and community is necessary for a full
understanding of English spread in these contexts. Future studies should also
include observation, interviews, surveys and other means to access the speech
communities’ attitudes and approaches to English spread and to investigate
linguistic processes of change in English language taught in those contexts
(Brutt-Griffler, 2002).

Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Dr Hacer Hande Uysal
(uysalhande@yahoo.com), Lia Plakans (lia-plakans@uiowa.edu) or Svetlana
Dembovskaya (svetlana-dembovskaya@uiowa.edu), Teaching and Learning,
Foreign Language and ESL Education, Lindquist Center, University of Iowa,
Iowa City, 52242 USA.

Notes
1. Anatolian normally refers to the part of Turkey that is in Asia. However, an Anatolian
high school is a type of school that is called Anatolian for no geographic reason:
there are Anatolian high schools in both the Asian and European parts of Turkey.
The special characteristics of these schools are first, that they are English medium
and second, that they accept students who have achieved a certain score in a central
exam.
2. For the sake of consistency and comparison throughout this paper the levels of French
education­ are described in terms of grades: the last year of the pre-primary school
refers to the grande section of the école maternelle, Grades 1–5 refer to cours préparatoire
up to cours moyen 2 (école élémentaire), Grades 6–9 refer to the four years in collège.
204 current issues in language planning

References
Ager, D. (1999) Identity, Insecurity, and Image: France and Language. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Akarsu, F. (2000) Transition and education: A case study of the process of change in
Turkey. In K. Mazurek, M. Winzer and C. Majorek (eds) Education in a Global Society:
A Comparative Perspective (pp. 315–329). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Alptekin, C. (1989) Learning a foreign language does not mean losing Turkish. In A.
Kilimci (ed.) Anadilinde CocukOlmak: Yabanci Dilde Egitim [Being a Child Speaking in the
Mother-Tongue: Education in Foreign Languages] (pp. 34–37). Ankara: Papirus
Yayinlari.
Aronssohn, D. (2003) English conquers Central Europe in language revolution. The Baltic
Times, February 6–12.
Baltic Times (2004) Demand for language schools remains strong (April 8–14).
Bear, M.J. (1985) Historical factors influencing attitudes toward foreign language learn-
ing in Turkey. Journal of Human Sciences of Middle East Technical University 1 (1),
27–36.
British Council (n.d.) Latvia. On WWW at http://www.britishcouncil.org/english/eyl/
latvia.htm. Accessed 3.3.03.
Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002) World English: A Study of Its Development. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Buyukkantarcioglu, N. (2004) Sociolinguistic analysis of English in Turkey. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 165 (1), 33–58.
Canagarajah, A.S. (2005) Reconstructing local knowledge, reconfiguring language
­studies. In A.S. Canagarajah (ed.) Reclaiming the Local in Language Policy and Practice
(ESL & Applied Linguistics Professional Series) (pp. 3–24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia (n.d.) Online database. Table 9–8. Teaching of Foreign
Languages in the General Schools. On WWW at http://data.csb.lv/EN/dialog/
varval.asp?ma509-08a&ti59%2D8%2E1TEACHING1OF1FOREIGN1LANGUAG
ES1IN1THE1GENERAL1SCHOOLS&path5../Database/annualstatistics/
09.%20Education%20and%20science/&search5FOREIGN1LANGUAGES&lang51.
Accessed 5.5.06.
Corson, D. (2001) Language Policy in Schools: A Resource for Teachers and Administrators.
Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crystal, D. (1997) English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, A. (1996) Review article: Ironising the myth of linguicism. Journal of Multilingual
and Multicultural Development 17 (6), 485–496.
Demircan, O. (1988) Dunden Bugune Turkiye’deYabanci Dil [Foreign Languages in Turkey
from Past to Present]. Istanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
Djité, P. (1995) The politics of language in developed countries. Australian Language
Matters 3 (4), 4–5, 10.
Doğançay-Aktuna, S. (1995) An evaluation of the Turkish language reform after 60 years.
Language Problems and Language Planning 19 (3), 221–249.
Doğançay-Aktuna, S. (1998) The spread of English in Turkey and its current socio­
linguistic profile. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 19 (1), 24–39.
Doğançay-Aktuna, S. and Kiziltepe, Z. (2005) English in Turkey. World Englishes 24 (2),
253–265.
Druviete, I. (1997) Linguistic human rights in the Baltic States. International Journal of the
Sociology of Language 127, 161–185.
Dulger, I. (2004) Turkey: Rapid coverage for compulsory education. The 1997 Basic
­education program. Paper presented in the Scaling Up Poverty Reduction and Global
Learning Process Conference, Asian Development Bank (ADB), 25–27 May 2004,
Shangai, China.
Duman, A. (1997) Yabanci dilde eğitim üzerine [On education in English]. Science and
Utopia Journal. Ankara University. On WWW at http://www.prism.gatech.edu/
~gte478 k/turkce1.html. Accessed 19.4.04.
English Language Spreads in Local Contexts 205

European Centre for Modern Languages (1996) Situation of modern language learning
and teaching in Latvia. On WWW at http://www.ecml.at/documents/members/
LettonieNR.pdf. Accessed 4.4.03.
Eurybase (2004/2005) Latvia. On WWW at http://194.78.211.243/Eurybase/
Application/frameset.asp?country5LV&language5EN. Accessed 10.5.06.
Eurydice (2001) Foreign Language Teaching in Schools in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice European
Unit. On WWW at http://oraprod.eurydice.org/portal/page?_pageid5217,163566&_
dad5portal&_schema5PORTAL&pub5025EN. Accessed 23.7.06.
Eurydice (2005) Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice
European Unit. On WWW at http://oraprod.eurydice.org/portal/page?_pageid5
217,163566&_dad5portal&_schema5PORTAL&pub5049EN. Accessed 17.8.06.
Fonzari, L. (1999) English in the Estonian multicultural society. World Englishes 18 (1),
39–48.
Fretwell, D.H. and Wheeler, A. (2001) Turkey: Secondary Education and Training. Secondary
Education Series. Washington, DC: World Bank Human Development Network.
Gaonac’h, D. (2005) À quoi peut servir l’enseignement précoce d’une langue étrangère?
[How useful is early foreign language education?] Cahiers Pédagogiques 437,
18–20.
Genc, A. (1999) Ilkogretimde yabanci dil [Foreign language in primary education]. Buca
Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 10, 299–307.
Grigg, P. (1997) Toubon or not Toubon: The influence of the English language in contem-
porary France. English Studies 78, 368–384.
Guclu, A. (2002) Anadolu liseleri ne olacak? [What is going to happen to the Anatolian
high schools?]. Milliyet (newspaper), 5 January 2002. On WWW at http://www.­
milliyet.com.tr/2002/05/01/yazar/guclu.html. Accessed 20.7.06.
Guclu, A. (2004a) Yabancı dille eg˘itim kalkacakmış! [Foreign language medium educa-
tion was told to be terminated!]. Milliyet (newspaper), 11 March 2004. On WWW at
http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2004/11/03/yazar/guclu.html. Accessed 20.7.06.
Guclu, A. (2004b) Yabancı dille eğitim (2) [Foreign language medium education]. Milliyet
(newspaper), 11 May 2004. On WWW at http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2004/11/05/
yazar/guclu.html. Accessed 20.7.06.
Haznedar, B. (2003) Primary language teaching and teacher education. Paper presented
at Hawaii International Conference on Education. 7–10 January 2003, Hawai’i.
Ilkhan, I. (2002) Yabancı dil oğretiminin sorun-çözüm bağlamında değerlendirilmesi
üzerine [On evaluating foreign language teaching on a problem-solution basis]. In D.
Köksal and I. Hakkı Erten (eds) Proceedings of the First International Troy-Çanakkale
Language Teaching and School Development Symposium. Çanakkale 18 Mart Üniversitesi.
On WWW at http://yadem.comu.edu.tr/1stELTKonf/TR_Ibrahim_Ilkhan_Sorun_
Cozum.htm. Accessed 10.8.06.
Jubilis, M.A. (2001) Nationalism and Democratic Transition: The Politics of Citizenship and
Language in Post-Soviet Latvia. Maryland: University Press of America.
Kachru, B.B. (1987) The spread of English and sacred linguistic cows. In P.H. Lowenberg
(ed.) Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics (pp. 1–15).
Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Kaplan, R.B. and Baldauf Jr, R.B. (1997) Language Planning: From Practice to Theory.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Kilimci, A. (1989) Anadilinde Cocuk Olmak: Yabanci Dilde Egitim [Being a Child Speaking in
the Mother-Tongue: Education in Foreign Languages]. Ankara: Papirus Yayinlari.
Kinzer, S. (2001) Crescent and Star: Turkey Between Two Worlds. New York: Farrar, Straus
and Giroux.
Konig, G.C. (1990) The place of English in Turkey. In D. Bozer (ed.) The Birth and Growth
of a Department. Department of English Language and Literature: 25th Anniversary 
(pp. 157–167). Ankara: Hacettepe University.
Konig, G.C. (2004) Introductıon. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 165 (1),
1–3.
Lambrie, N. and Quell, C. (1997) Your language, my language or English? The potential
language choice in communication among nationals of the European Union. World
Englishes 16 (1), 3–26.
206 current issues in language planning

L’Assemblée nationale (1975) Loi no 75-1349 du 31 décembre 1975 relative à l’emploi de

la langue française [Law 75-1349 of 13 December 1975 relating to usage of the French
language]. On WWW at http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/europe/France-loi-75-1349-
1975.htm. Accessed 23.7.06.
L’Assemblée nationale (1994) Loi no 94-665 du 4 août 1994 relative à l’emploi de la
langue française. [Law 94-665 of 4 August 1994 relating to usage of the French lan-
guage]. On WWW at http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnTexteDeJorf?nu
mjo5MCCX9400007L. Accessed 23.7.06.
L’Assemblée nationale (2005) Loi no 2005-380 du 23 avril 2005 d’Orientation et de
Programme pour l’Avenir de l’Ecole [Law 2005-380 of 23 April 2005 of Orientation and
of the Program for the Future of the School]. On WWW at http://www.legifrance.
gouv.fr/WAspad/UnTexteDeJorf?numjo5MENX0400282L. Accessed 23.7.06.
Milli Egitim Bakanligi (MEB) (Turkish Ministry of National Education) (1997) Law: 4306-
Ilkogretim ve egitim kanunu [The primary education and education law]. Resmi
Gazete No. 2308 4 August 18, 1997.
Milli Egitim Bakanligi (MEB) (Turkish Ministry of National Education) (2002) Ilköğretim
okullarında kurumsal değerlendirme araştırması [The institutional evaluation research on
primary education schools]. Baskent University, Ankara: MEB, Projeler Koordinasyon
Merkezi Baskanligi.
Milli Egitim Bakanligi (MEB) (Turkish Ministry of National Education) (2005) Talim
Terbiye Kurulu [The institute of training and discipline]. 14 July 2005. 192 sayili
kanunu [Law number 192].
Ministry of Education and Science, Republic of Latvia (MES) (2004) The Education
System in Latvia. On WWW at http://www.izm.gov.lv/default.aspx?tabID520&
lang55&id5550. Accessed 1.12.06.
Ozer, B. (2004) In-service training of teachers in Turkey. Journal of In-service Education 
30 (1), 89–100.
Ozolins, U. (1994) Upwardly mobile languages: The politics of language in the Baltic
States. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 15 (2–3), 161–169.
Ozolins, U. (1999) Between Russian and European hegemony: Current language policy
in the Baltic States. Current Issues in Language and Society 6 (1), 6–47.
Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, R. (1994) English language spread policy. International Journal of the Sociology
of Language 107, 7–24.
Phillipson, R. (1997) Realities and myths of linguistic imperialism. Journal of Multilingual
and Multicultural Development 18 (3), 238–248.
Phillipson, R. and Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1996) English only worldwide or language
­ecology? TESOL Quarterly 30 (3), 429–452.
Phillipson, R. and Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1997) Linguistic human rights and English in
Europe. World Englishes 16 (1), 27–43.
Prince, P. (2000) Learners of English in France: The question of motivation. Franco-British
Studies: Journal of the British Institute in Paris 29, 5–22.
Quirk, R. (1988) The question of standards in the international use of English. In P.H.
Lowenberg (ed.) Language Spread and Language Policy: Issues, Implications and Case
Studies (pp. 229–241). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Ricento, T. (2000) Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and ­planning.
Journal of Sociolinguistics 4 (2), 196–213.
Sénat (2001) Reunion de la Délégation du 4 Décembre 2001 [Delegation Meeting on 4
December 2001]. On WWW at http://www.senat.fr/europe/r04122001.html.
Accessed 24.4.03.
Sénat (2003) L’Enseignement des langues étrangères en France [Foreign Language Teaching
in France]. On WWW at http://www.senat.fr/rap/r03-063/r03-063_mono.html.
Accessed 12.12.04.
Sénat (n.d.) Questions. On WWW at http://www.senat.fr/quesdom.html. Accessed 
15.5.06.
Sinanoglu, O. (2005) Bir savas nasil kaybedilir – Ulusun ulus olmaktan cikarilmasi [How
a war can be lost – A nation’s losing its national characteristics]. On WWW at http://
www.sinanoglu.net. Accessed 1.5.06.
English Language Spreads in Local Contexts 207

Steele, R., St Onge, S. and St Onge, R. (1997) La Civilisation Française en Évolution II:
Insititutions et Culture de la Ve République [French Civilization in Evolution II: Institutions
and Culture of the V Republic]. Heinle & Heinle: Boston.
.
Toktar, E. (2000) Açıköğretimde I ngilizce öğretmeni yetiştirilecek [English teachers will
be educated through distance education]. Cumhuriyet (newspaper). 16 May 2000. On
WWW at http://www.egitim.aku.edu.tr/toktar7.htm. Accessed 20.7.06.
Truchot, C. (1997) The spread of English: From France to a more general perspective.
World Englishes 16 (1), 65–76.
Tsuda, Y. (1994) The diffusion of English: Its impact on culture and communication. Keio
Communication Review 16, 49–61.
Tsuda, Y. (1997) Hegemony of English vs. ecology of language: Building equality in
international communication. In L. Smith and M. Forman (eds) World Englishes 2000
vol. 14. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
United States Department of State (Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs) (2002)
English Language Programs Office. On WWW at http://exchanges.state.gov/education/ 
engteaching/rpts/weu0202.htm. Accessed 15.3.03.
Valdmanis, J. (1997) Processes Determining the Future of the Latvian Language. On WWW at
http://ailab.lv/valoda/process.htm. Accessed 14.2.03. Site sponsor: Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory, Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science, University
of Latvia.
Widdowson, H.G. (1997) EIL, ESL, EFL: Global issues and local interests. World Englishes
16 (1),135–146.

The Authors
Hacer Hande Uysal has just received her phD in Foreign Language/ESL
Education from the University of Iowa. She taught English in public and
­private schools at primary and secondary levels in Turkey for six years. Her
research interests are second language writing, language planning and teacher
education.
Lia Plakans is a PhD candidate in Foreign Language/ESL Education at 
the University of Iowa. She teaches academic English in a university level ESL
programme. Her research interests are language planning, CALL and assess-
ment. She has been a Fulbright scholar in Latvia (2005), teaching at the University
of Latvia and the Riga Stockholm School of Economics. She co-authored a text-
book (with Mary Kaye Jordan), Reading and Writing for Academic Success
(University of Michigan Press, 2003).
Svetlana Dembovskaya is a PhD candidate in Foreign Language/ESL
Education at the University of Iowa. She taught English at the primary and
­secondary school levels in Ukraine, and French at university level in the USA.
Her research interests are second language acquisition and instructional tech-
nologies. She is currently an instructor of French at Loyola Universty, Chicago.