Linguistic Imperialism, linguistic democracy and English language teaching∗ Mohammad Aliakbari Ilam University - Iran
[email protected] Abstract In response to the assumptions of linguistic imperialism and cultural homogeneity, especially explained and reacted to in Phillipson (1992), the present article raises ten contradictory arguments, which put the native speakers’ hegemony in international uses of English under question. Advocating cultural awareness, and intercultural competence, this article calls for the interlocutors’ mutual appreciation and cooperation of cultures to strengthen international relationships. Finally through an attempt to specify the problems with the 'native speakers’ dependency view, the article proposes linguistic democracy as the alternative paradigm and elaborates on recognition of cultural diversity in ELT. Key words: linguistic imperialism, linguistic democracy, biculturalism, and language–culture relationship. Introduction With respect to culture, some sense of powerlessness and inferiority has been thought of on the part of the language learners, which implies their dependability to native speakers (Valdes 1986; Phillipson 1992). This position is most radically articulated in Philipson (1992) as he considers that the relationship between the native English speaking community and the foreign or second language learning countries represents a sort of core-periphery connection. "The tenets of ELT have ideological and structural consequences. They serve to ∗
This paper was prepared when the author was a visiting scholar at the Center for Applied Linguistics and Languages at Griffith University, Australia during 2001-2002 academic year.
2
strengthen the hold of the centre over the periphery (Phillipson 1992: 192). Bisong (1995) reviews the main thread of Phillipson’s explanation of linguistic imperialism as follows. “The linguistic relation between the center and periphery has been and continues to be one of dominant and dominated languages. English, the author maintains, was originally imposed on a number of countries in the periphery and has through deliberate contrivance, successfully displaced, or replaced some of the indigenous languages of these countries. The dominance of English has also resulted in the imposition of the Anglo-Saxon Judeo-Christian culture that goes with it so that indigenous cultures have been undervalued and marginalised” (Bisong 1995: 123). Though Phillipson reacted to the idea in his own terms, this article also intends to highlight ten major problems with what has long been taken for granted by the advocates or the followers of such views. Yet, it is important to be clear that the upcoming position and discussions deal primarily with the English that is used in an international context. And the interactions between English native speakers’ are deliberately excluded from the arguments that follow.
The conceptual ambiguity A basic problem with native speakers' dependency position is the visible imprecision and simplification in the concept of 'native speaker' (e.g. Kachru 1982; Rampton 1990; Crystal 1992; Kramsch 1993). The differences among English speaking communities cannot be taken for granted. This diversity makes an inclusive and comprehensive definition or description bewildering, even impossible. Native speakers may share as much homogenizing features as they are known for their differences. This point is rightly recognized in Kramsch (1993) when she argues that the notion of a generic native speaker has become so diversified that it has lost its meaning. She further asserts that the concept of native speaker must be put in question from both linguistic and pragmatic perspectives. Kachru (1982) and Rampton (1990) also put emphasis on the
3
dissatisfaction with the terms 'native speaker' and 'mother tongue'. The latter seems more dissatisfied since he complains “the whole mystique of the native speaker and the mother tongue should probably be quietly dropped from the linguist’s set of professional myths about language” (Rampton 1990: 97). Generally speaking, the concept of 'native speaker', as it is used in the field, appears abstract, subjective, unrealistic and simplistic and attempts to undermine or minimise the differences among native speakers does not change the issue. It is abstract because it implies an idealised native speaker with perfect mastery of English. It is unrealistic in that it ignores the linguistic and cultural heterogeneity of native speaker communities. What we are witnessing is a collection of native speaker varieties not a single 'native speaker pattern'. It is subjective because in undermining the differences it creates an imaginary perception of the concept. More importantly, it is simplistic since it translates the growing tendency to learn English as a wish to be integrated to the native speaking communities.
The problem of representatives or language models According to Phillipson, the term Core English Speaking Countries covers Britain and the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Such diversified native speaking population naturally has led to an ambiguity in selecting a language model for the core. Though the proposed homogeneity implies adherence to a commonly agreed upon language model and the eventual superiority of the core, diversity among native English speaking communities limits the possibility of such an achievement. Since no group has officially, regionally or socially been proposed or accepted superior, there may be no criteria for adopting a single model. Besides, as Rampton (1990) insists nationality and ethnicity are not the same as language ability and language allegiance. Thus, the basic question of, who is the most representative to be taken as a model for non-native speakers? remains unanswered. Even if varieties as Elaborated code, Educated English, Standard English, Oxford English or RP can
4
be accepted as the model, it indirectly forces a good number of native speakers to learn that variety. In addition to their linguistic differences, native speakers' cultural diversity also restricts the possibility of such a selection. The literature suggests that there exists no unique culture common to all native speakers and almost every country is multicultural. For instance, Smith (1978) and Kachru (1982) note that the culture of the United Kingdom is certainly not similar to that of the United States, Canada, or Australia. Therefore, the possibility of finding an agreed upon representative is quite rare.
The problem of cooperation and collaboration Linguistic homogeneity position strongly violates the cooperative principle proposed and introduced by Grice (1975). As a cooperative principle or teamwork, communication demands cooperation on both sides. Both the speaker and the listener are required to contribute to overcome an information gap or a misunderstanding. In other words overcoming misunderstandings requires a shared commitment through which both sides cooperate to resolve the problem. In cases of native/non-native communication, insistence on culture-specific points on either side may lead to a communication breakdown. Thus participants in a communication are expected to avoid such topics and tend to base their interaction on the commonalities. Concerning the fact that in most interactions the interlocutors have equal status in giving and receiving information, avoiding accommodation in either side threatens the success of communication. Thus, both sides are recommended to refrain from cultural ambiguity and tune to manageable units. Improving global relationship through English may be achieved not through the native speakers' superiority, but through their admitting equal statues in the world communication.
5
The problem of direction The position in question implies that language use always aims at native speaker models. It perpetuates the notion of the ideal native speaker and assumes that learners are deficient. However, the question is not whether learners should observe native linguistic patterns but whether they should adopt every behaviour and attitude of native speakers. It is not always matter that the learners initiate the communication for their gain but native speakers increasingly need to communicate with non-native speakers to improve their own capital. Thus, there might be no convincing reason for approving the one-way direction of communication. This position is also supported by a vast number of researchers in the field (e.g. Smith and Bisazza 1982; Campbell et al. 1982; Smith and Rafiqzad 1979) in that they generally argue for native speakers’ need for training in using English internationally. Moreover, in the present condition of the world, the range of the nonnative/nonnative interactions, if not far greater than the interactions among native/nonnative ones, is highly noticeable. Thus, with such an indisputable increase in the range of nonnative/nonnative interactions the question of direction to native speakers or the one-way overflow of information appears useless, at least impractical.
The problem of minimizing the learners' role Defining hegemony as the dominant ideas that people take for granted, Phillipson asserts that English has a hegemonic position in many former colonies. "English linguistic hegemony can be understood as referring to the explicit and implicit values, beliefs, purposes, and activities, which characterise the ELT profession and which contribute to the maintenance of English as dominant language"(Phillipson 1992: 73). It seems that in cultural hegemony position, adopting the culture of native speakers has been considered as an undoubted truth and learners have been provided with no choice for culture. A major problem with this argument is that, through resorting to the culture of the
6
medium of the conversation, i.e. English, it characterises the interactors as helpless and passive receivers of their means of interaction. It deserves notice that there are countries or nations that voluntarily, try to learn foreign languages, especially English, to fulfil their own objectives and maintain a better global relationship. In such a condition, which has not been fully recognised in Phillipson's theory, displacement and replacement policies may not work. The dominant-dominated or centre-periphery distinction is irrelevant for analysing these situations. In such cases, learners are actively acquiring English to suit purposes that are not decided upon by the centre. To these learners, the basic reason for learning English is not simply the access to English native speakers but to the global community. Therefore, this article argues that, as the potential speaker of English, the learner is the one who will decide about the kind of culture to be expressed not the language or its native speakers. In fact, it looks illogical or unreasonable to expect the learners give up their own culture and adopt the culture of the acquired language or its speakers.
The question of intelligibility Relevant to the position stated at the beginning of the article is the assumption that native speakers are the most intelligible speakers of English. This position, though widely held, has not been validated empirically. On the contrary, Smith and Rafiqzad’s (1979) empirical study of the role of the native speaker’s phonology demonstrated that native speakers are not necessarily the most intelligible ones. The study expressively signifies how non-native speakers have problems in understanding native ones. They conclude,
“since native
speaker phonology does not appear to be more intelligible than nonnative phonology, there seems to be no reason to insist that the performance target in the English classroom be a native speaker” (ibid.: 57). Accordingly, They found no place for the role of the national and cultural bias in cross-cultural communication. This point has also been acknowledged by Widdowson (1994)
7
when he notes, "the majority of those who are to the language born speak nonstandard English and have themselves to be instructed in the standard at school" (p.397).
The question of ownership In his explanation of linguistic imperialism, Phillipson talks about a view among a group of native speakers who think of their ownership of English. However, with its global extension throughout the world, English is no longer considered as a property belonging to its native speakers. "English is no longer the language of its originators. It has become a property of the world” (Shaw 1983: 21). Based on the argument that the state of English language in the world is distinct from and beyond the state of its native speaking communities, English can and should be denationalized in international communications. This argument relies on the assumption that English as a native language or in a national level differs from English as an international language, (Bower 1992; Talebinezhad & Aliakbari 2001). Widdowson’s (1994) position in this relation is also highly insightful. In response to the question of which community or which culture has a rightful claim to ownership of standard English, he asserts, "the very fact that English is an international language means that no nation can have custody over it. To grant such custody of the language, is seemingly to arrest its development and so undermine its international status" (p. 385).
The question of attitudes Language users’ attitude toward the language they speak has been proved effective in learning the language and managing the communication, (Gardner and Lambert 1972; Oller, Baca, and Vigil 1978). Attitude is communicatively functional. It can either facilitate or hinder communication. Cited in Valdes (1985), Schumann (1976: 40) describes a bad language learning situation as when the 2LL (second language learner) group would consider itself subordinate
8
and would be considered subordinate by target language group. He further describes a good language learning situation as the one in which both groups have positive attitude toward each other, (p.139). Therefore, both the native speakers’ assumption of the language as their own possession and non-native speakers’ consideration of English as an imposed language can be very preventive and destructive. British Council's Annual Reports discussed in Phillipson (1992) represent such an extreme attitude. "British influence, British power has not diminished, because Britain has this 'invisible, God-given asset [English language]. Thus, 'Britain's influence endures, out of all proportion to her economic or military resources" (British Council Reports 1983/1984:9). Adopting a different position, this article calls for a distinction between English as a national property in English speaking countries and English as an international language (EIL). Through the shift towards EIL, two major consequences are expected: first native speakers’ attitude of considering English as 'their own property' seems to be in urgent need of revision. An 'our' position is what both native and nonnative speakers of English can adopt. The second change has to do with the native speaker’s attitudes about English spoken by foreigners or other native speaking communities. Local varieties of English along with British and American English can still be considered acceptable. This position is also in agreement with Widdowson (1994) in that he asserts that an international language has to be an independent language. “It [English] is not a possession which they [native speakers] lease out to others, which still retaining the freehold. Other people actually own it” (p. 385).
The question of comprehensibility Smith and Bisazza (1982) found out that in comprehending nonnative speakers, native speakers were not necessarily superior to their nonnative counterparts, nor were they free from deficiency or problem. Accordingly, they
9
suggest that native speakers also need practice and training for comprehending English internationally. Thus, they consider the users’ comprehensibility in English in the international setting as an outcome of active exposure to both native and non-native speech. They also affirm that the assumption that nonnative students of English will be able to comprehend fluent nonnative speakers if they understand native speakers is clearly not correct. “They seem to need exposure to both native and non-native varieties in order to improve understanding in communication” (Smith and Bisazza 1982: 67). Comprehension in international situations is actually the result of the familiarity with, and understanding of, variant speakers. This is why they suggest that a true evaluation of one’s English comprehensibility should be based on the judgement of both native and nonnative speakers of the language (ibid.: 59).
The question of culture Phillipson also informs us of the implicit ideology of anglocentricity and English linguistic imperialism behind ELT promotion. "The title linguistic imperialism refers to a particular theory for analysing relations between dominant and dominated cultures, and specifically the way English language learning has been promoted" (Phillipson 1992:15). With respect to culture, several points deserve clarification. The diversity of native speakers’ cultures or lack of consensus on a culture common to all native speakers, inaccessibility of any approved criteria for selecting one culture or another as model and lack of a justified reason for drawing parallelism between bilingualism and biculturalism are just a few. Kramsch (1993) holds that the ability to behave like someone else is no guarantee that one will be more easily accepted by the group who speak the language, nor that mutual understanding will emerge. Moreover, when any language becomes international in character it cannot be bound to any one culture. This does not, by any means, mean to hinder the language-culture relationship. Rather it sets out to argue that, the existence of the relationship
10
between the two does not specify a constraint on the categories of the two sides. This position is eloquently expressed in Smith (1981) when she notes, “language and culture may be inextricably tied together but no one language is inextricably tied to any one culture and no one needs to become more like native speakers in order to use English well”(p. 10).
The experience of global interaction in English enables one to claim that the learners do not need to become more western or change their morals to use English well in international situations. In a similar position, Smith (1976) argues "it is not necessary to appreciate the culture of a country whose principle language is English in order for one to use it effectively. Neither does the effective use of English need to make one more western"(p. 2). It needs to be clear that this article does not intend to undermine the possibility of expressing culture in interactions. Rather, it argues that the culture of the means of communication and its native speakers is not necessarily practical or ideal culture in all English interactions. Thus, it implies that there is no particular culture for English as an international language and obviates the representation of different indigenous cultures through English.
Discussion If the widespread use of English makes it an international language, it does not mean that everyone who speaks English will behave like Americans, Australians, Canadians, or so. The worldwide spread of English should by no means be considered as a homogenizing factor, which causes cultural differences to disappear. Rather the ever-increasing use of English throughout the world offers a medium to express and explain these differences. In an English native speaking country such as Australia, it is not difficult to notice the difference among native speaker news announcers reporting for the national or local channels. Moreover, research has not indicated a common desire among
11
members of the world community, when using English, to become more like native speakers in their life style. As the native as well as nonnative speakers’ need for training in using English internationally has already been stressed (Smith and Bisazza 1982), there is no room for cultural or linguistic chauvinism of native speakers in international interactions.
With the growing trend of English becoming a worldwide language of communication, the time is ripe, it seems, for a change in attitudes of both native and nonnative speakers towards English. Both are recommended to adopt a new orientation with regard to this language and its speakers. In shifting toward English as an international language, native English speakers are expected to change their attitudes and assumptions concerning English and its varieties. Upon the universal extension of English, they are expected to give up the monopolistic view and simply take a universal position. They are also expected to treat the present varieties of English as realities, which can no longer be considered improper or unacceptable (Talebinezhad & Aliakbari 2001:2). Non-native speakers must also become more tolerant to, and get along with, many varieties of educated English. They should also learn about the ways other nonnative speakers use English. In addition, they are expected to give up the assumption that considers English a colonizing effect or a manipulative means, which necessarily leads to westernisation.
To be brief, it seems clear that in using English as an international language, there is no need for the user to be like a native speaker of English. In such a condition English can be taken as a means of expressing the speakers’ culture, not one for imitating the culture of Great Britain, the U.S. or any other English speaking country. Since in such conditions the interlocutors come from different cultures no special culture can be imposed. Perhaps in using English internationally, cultural awareness and appreciation of cultural differences on the
12
one hand and the attempt to develop intercultural competence on the other, can lead to more successful and effective communications. This is exactly what is meant by linguistic democracy, the discussion of which makes up the final section of the article.
The Proposal; Linguistic democracy While linguistic imperialism is certainly real in analysing and explaining a known period and policy of English language promotion, it does not seem to cover the whole picture of ELT. Following the worlds’ recognition for dialogue, especially after United Nations' nomination of the year 2001 as the year of dialogue among civilisations, the new millennium is thought to require a new linguistic terminology, one which is not tainted with one side’s superiority, hegemony or expansionism. The special thesis in this article is a call for linguistic and cultural democracy among the speakers of English in international situations throughout the world. This proposal rests on the assumption that democracy is the accepted choice for human relations and language as a human attribute is thought to follow the same direction. Deeply rooted in monopoly and colonization, linguistic imperialism may no longer accounts for the volunteer language learners' condition in learning and using English as an international language. On the contrary, the ever-increasing body of English language learners can take advantage of this globally recognised means of communication to express the variant cultural treasures in their background. In this proposal, English is not expected to decline to a narrow path to the monocultural bank of Anglo-Saxon tradition. Rather it is to function as a vast and endless resource of human civilization, which can thereby turn into a global archive of man’s cultural heritage.
In linguistic democracy, the non-native majority of English speakers are no longer recognised as 'periphery'. Nor are they thought to yield to the native
13
'core' minority. In this system all speakers of English, native or otherwise, have the right to remain faithful to their original culture. In other words, the global attraction to learning English as an international language is not interpreted as the learners’ undervaluing of their native language or culture. Rather, it is considered as man’s struggle for mutual understanding in the presence of diversity. Thus, the ultimate destination is not linguistic and cultural homogeneity but the appreciation of linguistic and cultural diversity as well as tolerance. Accordingly, with no intention to undermine the value of the cultures of various native speaking communities, the final suggestion is a call for decentring culture in English language teaching enterprise away from the authority of the imaginary, unreal 'native speaker'. Acknowledgments I would like to thank Professor David Ingram, director of the Centre for Applied Linguistics and Languages in Griffith University, Dr. Shirley O’Neill and Elaine Wylie, Senior Research Fellows, for their valuable comments on the article.
References Alptekin, C. & Alptekin, M. 1984. “The question of culture: EFL teaching in non-English speaking countries". ELT Journal. 38/1, 14-20. Bisong, J. 1995. “Language choice and cultural imperialism”. ELT Journal. Vol. 49/2, 129-132. Bowers, R. 1992. “Memories, metaphors, maxims, and myths: Language learning and cultural awareness”. ELT journal, 46/1. British Council Annual Reports 1940-41 to 1989-90. Campbell, D., Ekniyom, P., Haque, A. and Smith, L. 1982. "English in international settings: problems and their causes". In L. Smith. (Ed.) 1983. Readings in English as an international language. Pergamon Press.
14
Crystal, D. 1992. An encyclopedic dictionary of language and languages. Blackwell Publishers.
Grice, H. P. 1975. "Logic and conversation". In Cole, P. & Morgan, J.P. (Eds.) Syntax and semantics 3: Speech Acts. Academic Press. Jenkins, J. 1998. "Which pronunciation norms and models for English as International Language?" ELT Journal. 52/ 2, 119-126. Kachru, B. 1982. “Models for non–native Englishes”. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.) The other tongue. Urbana University of Illinois Press. Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and culture in language teaching. New York. Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rampton, M. B. H. 1990. “Displacing the ‘native speaker’: Expertise, affiliation and inheritance”. ELT Journal, 44/2, 97-101. Shaw, D. 1981. “Asian students attitudes towards English” In L. Smith (Ed.) 1983. Readings in English as an international language. Pergamon Press. Smith, L.E. 1976. “English as international auxiliary language.” RELC Journal, 7. Smith, L. E. (Ed.). 1981. English for cross-cultural communication. London. Macmillan.
15
Smith, L. E. and Bisazza, J. A. 1982. “The comprehensibility of three varieties of English for collage students in seven countries". Language learning. Vol. 32, No. 2. Smith, L. E. & Rafiqzad. 1979. "English for cross-cultural communication: the question of intelligibility". In L. Smith (Ed.) 1983. Readings in English as an international language. Pergamon Press. Talebinezhad, M. R. and Aliakbari, M. 2001. “Basic assumptions in Teaching English as an International Language". The Internet TESL Journal. Vol. VII. No. 7. Available on line at http://iteslj.org/Articles/TalebinezhadEIL.html. Valdes, J. M. (Ed.) 1986. Culture Bound: Bringing the cultural gap in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Widdowson, H. G. 1994. "The ownership of English". TESOL Quarterly. 28/2, 377-389.
