The Global Level

Two important books on international English are Phillipson's "Linguistic Imperialism" (1992) and Crystal's "English as a Global Language" (1997). These books represent two diverging views on the subject matter. While Phillipson sees English and ELT as a means of oppressing the third world, Crystal regards the language as a neutral and beneficial tool for international communication.

[Note: The two books - and the linguistic imperialism hypothesis are discussed at lenght in the print version].

When Phillipson criticises Crystal's book as an oversimplification of the complexity and reality of global English (Phillipson 1999b: 270) he is guilty as charged himself. Although it is certainly wrong to attribute the spread of English to luck, as Crystal does, it is equally misguided to see the language only in terms of linguistic imperialism. On the one hand, Crystal's and Phillipson's books are important because they raise fascinating questions; on the other hand, both are faulty because none provides a balanced account. In this respect, Kachru's "The Alchemy of English", although already a bit dated (1986), is a preferable alternative.

A crucial lesson that can be drawn from these three books, then, is that one walks a very thin line when dealing with such a politically charged topic as the spread of English in a global context. While an "objective" linguistic inquiry - as far as such a thing is possible - should under no circumstance disregard the political perspectives of English and ELT and while it should also take the unequal distribution of wealth, power and information around the globe into account one must at the same time make sure that one is not carried away by ideology. Rather, conclusions should be reached after a thorough review of the evidence.

[...]

Because of the complex nature of the topic it would be preposterous to suggest a definite conclusion to this chapter. However, I would like to restate some important points that have been made so far [Note: see print version]:

The two major forces which spread English throughout the world are British colonialism in the 19th and American capitalism in the 20th century.
Important criticism of linguistic imperialism centres on its in-built power asymmetry, that fact that is not falsifiable, Phillipson's left-wing terminology and tone and the way he deals with critics. An analysis of the linguistic situation in Nigeria shows that linguistic imperialism is too simplistic to account for the country's complex language ecology.
Mainstream linguists agree with Phillipson in his criticism of the tenets of monolingualism and the native speaker, which are, despite this criticism, widely spread.
English has in some cases been appropriated by the elite.
The future development of English will be characterised by a contrast between local varieties of English and dislocalised lingua franca English(es) (that is the standard used by globally acting professions like doctors, lawyers and so on). I argue, however, that local varieties, say from Nigeria, will influence the Nigerian specialist's English - therefore a clear-cut distinction may not always be possible.
Because native speakers regard non-native varieties with suspicion and because a knowledge of the British or American English (Toefl/Cambridge examinations) there is a pressure to conform to an inner circle variety within many - but not all - professions.
Regarding the status of the local variety of English in the respective country the socio-economic context - and how it is perceived by the respective scholar - is paramount.

The main research finding seems to be, though, that English is appropriated for local purposes around the world (sometimes, but not always, by elites). I have the strong suspicion that Phillipson's notion of "resistance" and Pennycook's critical pedagogy (1994) are, in fact, such appropriations. If, for instance, an ELT book from the West is used in a developing country in a different manner as conceived by the authors of this book, this can be conceived as both, "appropriation" or "resistance". Another form of appropriation/resistance is the use of indigenous teaching material (this has been mentioned several times already). My point is that English can be appropriated for both: colonialism (as the British did in the 19th century) and resistance to foreign influences (as developing countries do now).

Let me give a few more instance of appropriation to show how global this phenomenon really is:

Prodromou proposes that English in Greece should be taught by "recycling" Granglais, the Greek version of English. (1988)
Baxter holds that the Japanese have successfully appropriated English for business purposes not only with English speaking countries but also with Europe and Asia. More and more Japanese are dissatisfied with being told that they should speak English like a native-speaker. (1991 [1980]: 59-60)
Demonstrators in non-English speaking countries often use signs in English to convey their demands to TV-audiences around the globe [see title page].
Bobda shows how Cameroon has moved away from a monocultural, Anglo-centred way of teaching English and has gradually appropriated teaching material to a Cameroonian context. Non Western-topics treated are, for instance, the rule of Emirs, traditional medicine or polygamy. (1997:225) Bobda sensibly argues for bicultural education, that is, he wants to present both Cameroonian and Anglo-American cultures. (1997:234)
The Pakistaini textbook's "Primary Stage English" and "My English Book" include lessons such as "Pakistan My Country", "Our Flag", or "Our Great Leader" (Malik 1993: 5,6,7) might well sound jingoistic and fanatically Muslim to Western ears. Within the native culture, however, the connection to Muslim faith and patriotism is seen as one of the aims of ELT, as the Chairman of the Punjab Textbook Board elaborates: "The board...takes care, through these books to inoculate in the students a love of the Islamic values and awareness to guard the ideological frontiers of your home lands." (Punjab Text Book Board 1997)
Likewise, in Malaysia, English books for primary schools are rigorously checked to ensure that they conform to the local culture (Ozog in Pakir 1993: 11) and when Malaysian students use English text books at university level they might well connect non-western values with the language.
In Saudi-Arabia, learning English is seen as a religious duty because it is useful for the teaching of Islam to non-Arabs. (Al-Abed Al Haq and Smadi 1996: 477) ·
When Kachru tells us (1985:14) that English in South Asia is used by such diverse groups as Communists, Muslim Fundamentalists, Hindu Rightists as well as factions of the Congress Party he illustrates the seemingly paradoxical fact that although English is apolitical on one level (no language is political in itself) it is put to immensely political uses by the parties mentioned above.
Similarly, Chew states that English is the courier of many cultures of myriad values, of different religions and of antagonistic political systems. Both in Singapore and ASEAN, where English is the official language, the dictum is "yes to English" and "no to Western values". (Chew 1999: 42)

As the appropriation of ELT is such a widespread phenomenon, not authentic (that is native-speaker centred) but appropriate pedagogy should be applied. Such appropriate pedagogy should "prepare learners to be both global and local speakers of English and to feel at home in both international and national cultures" (Kramsch and Sullivan 1996: 211, see also my suggestions for a polymodel approach in the chapter on English in Europe).

The "internationalisation" of English might also bring new possibilities for native speakers of the language. 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 out own language and culture discover new possibilities, fresh contradictions." (1985: 45)

Here, McCabe refers to writers from Africa and Asia who have used and appropriated the English language for their own purposes but whose usage of English has also made their works accessible to a wider audience. For Kachru, once English aquires a new identity - African or Asian - through creative writing the language is liberated from its colonial past. (1997: 232)

Finally, let me stress that the role of English is not only discussed by a small number of ELT professionals and linguists. On the internet I came across a passionate discussion about the very same subject by biologists. Some were quite happy with English, others pointed out alternatives like Esperanto or Interlingua. Because biologists know quite a lot of Latin, it has even been suggested to adopt this dead language, as it would be more neutral than present-day English. (see Taxacom Biological Systematics and Biocollections Computerization Discussion Listserv Archiv 1996)

Zurück zur Übersichtsseite/Back to the Contents Page

Vorige Seite/Last Page

Nächste Seit/Next Page