English and English language teaching, centered on Phillipson's (1992) seminal ... his colleagues (they were republicans), introduced the use of the term in a .... description of some of the main professional ELT language ideologies (my ..... medicine, diplomacy, sports, international competitions, pop music, and advertising.
Linguistic Imperialism and the Political Economy of Global English Language Teaching
James Corcoran Doctoral Candidate, Department of Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning Second Language Education/Comparative, International & Development Education The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education – University of Toronto
Prepared for delivery at the 2009 Meeting of the Latin American Studies Association, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil June 11-14, 2009
1
Linguistic Imperialism and the Political Economy of Global English Language Teaching Introduction This paper begins with a discussion and description of language ideology, specifically a review of the evolution of the term ideology, its importance to the debate regarding the spread of English, and its use by the author throughout the paper. The bulk of this paper reviews the literature on the spread of English and English language teaching, centered on Phillipson’s (1992) seminal work Linguistic Imperialism and the arguments therein supporting his hypothesis that English is essentially spreading as an aid to Anglo-American hegemony, followed by arguments refuting his hypothesis, and, finally, arguments transforming his hypothesis. These separate arguments, which I label “English: imperialist essence”, “English: natural globalization processes”, and “English: language resistance and appropriation” are critiqued by the author throughout this section. Also included in this section is a specific focus on the political economy of ELT in the Brazilian context. The final section of this paper includes the implications of this debate on global English language teaching and, more specifically, English language teacher education, both domestically and abroad. This section includes the author’s suggestions for how to make the de-bunking of language ideologies central to critical language teacher education. Language & Ideology For Marx 1 , ideological thinking/consciousness, at least the type that he calls ideology is historically specific to capitalism; it is produced by people’s sensuous experience of capitalist reality, within uncritical/reproductive praxis. Ideology serves to mask or misrepresent the real contradictions that make capitalism possible, and, therefore, by helping to perpetuate capitalism, it serves the interest of the dominant class (capitalist/bourgeois)… (Allman, 2007, p. 39) In her introduction to Language Ideologies, B. B. Schieffelin (1998) describes the evolution of the term ideology, from its coining by French philosopher Destutt de Tracy in the late eighteenth century (the only definition with a positive connotation) to Napoleon’s to Marx and Engels’ to French poststructuralists’ (Althusser) use of the term. Destutt de Tracy used the term in a positive sense, describing a science of ideas connected to zoology and one that would (he envisioned) allow for the complete understanding of the human animal. Napoleon, in an effort to discredit Destutt de Tracy and his colleagues (they were republicans), introduced the use of the term in a negative sense, using the term “ideologue” as a derogatory term describing those who favoured unrealistic, abstract theories not based in political reality (Schieffelin, 1998). Schieffelin describes the evolution of the term and the current usage, which still varies quite substantially, but always holds a negative connotation. Importantly, ideology is often thought to be connected to discourse surrounding the ideas or consciousness at its root (Gouldner, 1976; Thompson, 1984; Williams, 1977). Consciousness, or, in the case of Marx and Engels, “false consciousness” or a partial/fragmented understanding of the world is the result of ideological thought. Indeed, Marx and Engels refer to this distorted understanding as camera obscura, an upside down image of the world (Marx and Engels, 1989, p. 47) It is primarily this Marxian sense of ideology that I am using when I refer to language ideologies or ideologies of
1
Marx is specifically relevant to a discussion of Phillipson’s (1992) assertion that English is an imperialist servant because it is Marx’s writings and dialectical approach that have influenced Phillipson to an extent (personal communication).
2
language 2 . In coming to grip with using this term, however, I would also like to draw on a poststructuralist understanding of ideology such as that expressed by Althusser (1971) and defined as a “particular organization of signifying practices which goes to constitute human beings as social subjects, and which produces the lived relations by which such subjects are connected to the dominant relations of production in society” (Eagleton, 1991, p. 18). What are missing from this powerful and intriguing definition (very closely related to Bourdieu’s ideas of doxy and habitus) are both a focus on distortion and the centrality of the dominant interests ideological thought serve. The ideologies of language in this paper refer specifically to those surrounding the English language. More specifically to this paper, language ideologies relate to the global spread of English, how this language is taught and learned in a foreign language context, and whose interests the spread of English and English Language Teaching (ELT) serve. Linguistic Imperialism Robert Phillipson’s Linguistic Imperialism (1992) is still causing a stir more than fifteen years after its initial publication. In a groundbreaking, well-researched work, Phillipson lays out his arguments favouring the notion of linguistic imperialism and the ways in which it is connected to and aided by English language teaching. Phillipson takes a historic approach, reviewing the brief history of English language teaching alongside the recent character of Anglo-American imperialism, investigating who wins and who loses with the global spread of English and English language teaching—highlighting the economic, social, and political ramifications. Linguistic imperialism is defined as “the dominance of English—asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural (material: institutions, financial allocations) and cultural (immaterial/ideological: attitudes, pedagogical principles) inequalities between English and other languages” (Phillipson, 1992, p. 47). Hence, the spread of the English language and English language teaching (ELT) serves the interests of Anglo-American hegemony. Phillipson labels linguistic imperialism a subtype of linguicism, a term Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas (1986), defined as “ideologies, structures, and practices which are used to legitimate, effectuate, and reproduce an unequal division of power and resources (both material and immaterial) between groups which are defined on the basis of language” (p. 430). To broadly outline Phillipson’s argument for classifying the spread of English (through and including ELT) as imperialist and linguicist, he asserts that English is complicit in the opening of new markets for ‘centre’-‘periphery’ or north-south exploitation (primarily Great Britain-Africa) in terms of extraction of material resources (South to North) and exportation of ‘modern’ ideas (North to South) facilitating this extraction. He makes these claims using Galtung’s (1980) Cultural Imperialism theory, in which one society can dominate another through four mechanisms: exploitation, penetration, fragmentation, and marginalization. Galtung argues that these mechanisms need not be explicitly pursued by the colonizers/dominators, but may happen automatically (an argument Phillipson makes about English language teachers—one that will be discussed in depth in the final section). Central to Phillipson’s claims are the ideas that ELT and its professionalism and anglocentricity “legitimate English as the dominant language by rationalizing activities and beliefs which contribute to the structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages” (p. 48). Without belabouring the point, the professional discourse around ELT, Phillipson argues, “disconnects culture from structure” by limiting the focus in the language pedagogy to technical things at the exclusion of social, economic, and political issues or the connection between language and these social realms. Below is a
2
The terms language ideologies and ideologies of language will be used interchangeably throughout the paper.
3
description of some of the main professional ELT language ideologies (my terminology) Phillipson argues legitimizes English to the detriment of other world languages. Language ideologies in English language teaching. The 1950s and 1960s are seen by some as a watershed era in the ELT profession, with Britain infusing great sums of money into ELT to assert neocolonial control over newly independent nations (Howatt, 1984). The Commonwealth Conference on the Teaching of English as a Second Language, held in Makerere, Uganda in 1961, related the tenets and principles behind many of what Phillipson terms ‘fallacies’ of the ELT profession. According to Braine (2003), this conference “bestowed legitimacy” to widespread beliefs of a profession that had “little theoretical foundation or pedagogical methods” (p. XIV). These tenets (or, language ideologies as I label them), which Phillipson believes the modern ELT enterprise accepts as “unchallenged dogma”, favour his notion of linguistic imperialism: 1) English is best taught monolingually (the monolingual fallacy); 2) the ideal English Language teacher is a native-speaker (native speaker fallacy); 3) the earlier English is taught, the better the result (early start fallacy); 4) the more English is taught, the better the results (maximum exposure fallacy); 5) if other languages are used too much, English standards will drop (subtractive fallacy). (Phillipson, 1992, p. 185) The idea that English is best taught monolingually is based on the idea that an exclusive focus on English will maximize the learning of the language, irrespective of whatever other languages the learner may know. Phillipson sees this idea as inextricably linked with a linguicist disregard of other languages, concepts and ways of thinking, ultimately inducing a “colonized consciousness” (p. 187). The monolingual fallacy is especially relevant to an EFL context as such a theory rejects learners “most intense existential experience” (p. 189) by excluding the L1 from the classroom. Phillipson emphatically states that when the L1 is excluded from the classroom, teaching leads to “alienation of the learners, deprives them of their cultural identity, and leads to acculturation rather than increased intercultural communicative competence” (p. 193). Finally, this tenet has not only social, but economic consequences (Canagarajah, 1999; Phillipson, 1992; Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, 1996; Pennycook, 1994). The monolingual tenet legitimizes the idea of a global group of language teaching professionals who are basically equally well qualified for a job anywhere there is demand for ELT. This creates jobs for monolingual centre professionals while subordinating and excluding such jobs for periphery professionals (Phillipson, 1992, p. 193). Additionally, this tenet allows for a monopoly of the production of teaching materials by the centre, for consumption by mainly periphery sources, which, Phillipson claims, “…in turn reinforces anglocentricity and the hold of ELT professionalism” (p. 193). The idea that English is best taught monolingually leads to the obvious conclusion that the best teacher of the language would then be a native speaker. This assumption, as noted above, has produced an unequal power dynamic among teachers of both EFL and ESL and has been questioned by many who feel, indeed, the opposite is true (Auerbach 1993, Atkinson 1987, Canagarajah 1999, Cook 2001). Kachru (1986) has taken the native speaker fallacy to task in suggesting the inadequacy of NESTs in a world with “other Englishes…systemic variants rather than deficient imitations…” popping up worldwide. Important to this paper is how this fallacy has, as Phillipson suggests, bound the periphery interests to the centre without allowing for the “flourishing of local pedagogical initiative which could build on local strengths and linguistic realities” (p. 199). The following sections will look at the
4
arguments supporting, rejecting, and transforming Phillipson’s assertions about the spread of English and ELT. Arguments For Linguistic Imperialism English: Imperialist essence. To speak means to be in a position to use certain syntax, to grasp the morphology of this or that language, but it means above all to assume a culture, to support the weight of a civilization. (Fanon, 1967, pp. 17-18) Those who support−to a large extent−the assertion that the spread of English is indeed an imperialist endeavour (many say driven by English language teaching) do so from many angles, but all generally in-line with or inspired by Phillipson’s work(s). Cooke (1988) has described the spread of English as a ‘Trojan horse’ of imperialism and of particular class interests and has drawn attention, like Phillipson, to the fact that English teaching around the globe is a threat to indigenous languages, while providing a greater distance between haves and have-nots in terms of access to this resource which (dis)qualifies many for employment in periphery countries. Tollefson (1991), among others (Holborrow, 1999; Pennycook, 1994) has also highlighted the connections between English and the social and economic power of elites in periphery countries. He argues that English plays a major role in contributing to the (ever)growing inequality in developing world countries by “creating and maintaining social divisions that serve an economy dominated by a small elite, and foreign economic interests” (p. 186). Still others have commented that, as Naysmith (1987) does, that “English language teaching has become part of the process whereby one part of the world has become politically, economically, and culturally dominated by another” (p. 3). These criticisms of the spread of English and ELT have all been made along class lines−from both neo-Marxist and postmodernist perspectives−very much in line with what the renowned critical discourse analyst Fairclough (2006) has described as a “hyperglobalist” position, one in which English is seen as contributing to the emergence of “a single global market which is supplanting the nation-state as the primary economic and political unit” (p. 15). These are not the only scholars who agree with Phillipson, however. Some scholars, like his wife and research partner, Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (2000), argue that “schools are every day [by using English instead of indigenous languages] committing linguistic genocide” (p. vi). Many non-linguists such as welfare economist Amyarta Sen (2002) have noted that English is involved in a genocidal process of monolingualization, contributing to worldwide poverty or what he terms ‘capability deprivation’ and ‘unfreedom’. These concerns are echoed by other economists, mostly focused on the developing world, such as de Swaan (2001), who forcefully connects linguistic diversity to world systems: The worldwide constellation of languages is an integral part of the “world system”. The population of the earth is organized into almost two hundred states and a network of international organizations – the political dimension of the world system; it is coordinated through a concatenation of markets and corporations – the economic dimension; it is linked by electronic media in an encompassing, global culture; and, in its “metabolism with nature”, it also constitutes an ecological system….(The) fact that humanity, divided by a multitude of languages, but connected by a lattice of multilingual speakers, also constitutes a coherent language constellation, as one more dimension of the world system, has so far remained unnoticed. (De Swaan, 2001, p. 14)
5
Building on arguments made by economists as well as Skutnabb-Kangas’ linguistic diversity argument, Romaine (2009), a renowned Canadian linguist, highlights the areas around the world richest in ecological and linguistic resources−showing that they generally overlap. She then forcefully posits that human development theorists such as Jeffrey Sachs (2005) must consider not only the economic development of a region, but the ecological and linguistic development (and maintenance) as well. Too often, according to Romaine, development economists do not connect expansion of free markets with expansion of colonial languages (often English) when considering ways of increasing gross domestic product or other wealth-related indices. Tying these various strands of arguments together, Mohanti (2005) describes the connection between the spread of colonial language (in India, in this case) and its connections to linguistic diversity, human rights, and poverty: When language becomes the basis of power, control and discrimination, socioeconomic inequality is perpetuated; the language(s) that people speak or do not speak determines their access to resources. Education is a critical factor in this relationship between language and power. The exclusion and nonaccomodation of languages in education denies equality of opportunity to learn, violates linguistic human rights, leads to the loss of linguistic diversity and triggers a vicious cycle of disadvantage perpetuating inequality, capacity deprivation and poverty. Education provided only in English and other dominant languages leads to a great inequality of educational opportunities between the advantaged speakers of the ‘correct’ and culturally promoted languages and the strongly handicapped speakers of the ‘incorrect’ and stigmatized languages. (Mohanti, 2009, p. 121) In terms of more specific arguments against the spread of ELT, many including Pennycook (1994) and Canagarajah (1999) have railed against ELT as a ‘business’ and the capitalist-positivist view of language as a commodity posited by the industry as a whole. Pennycook (1994) cites a British Ministry of Education (1956) report that was an early indication of the thinking of English and American governments in terms of the economic benefits of the spread of English and ELT: English is a commodity in great demand all over the world; it is wanted not only for reasons of friendship and trade with English-speaking countries but also for other reasons not necessarily connected with any desire to imitate British ways or to understand British history and culture. We are, therefore, looking at the language mainly as a valuable and coveted export that many nations are prepared to pay for, if it can be supplied in the right quantities, and which some others would be glad to have on subsidized terms if they cannot pay the full price. English is, moreover, an export that is very likely to attract other exports – British advisers and technicians, British technological or university education, British plant and equipment and British capital investment. There are clear commercial advantages to be gained from increasing the number of potential customers who can read technical and trade publicity material written in English. (Ministry of Education, 1956, paragraph 10) Recent estimates of the EFL market put the number for private EFL training at approximately $20 billion annually, with the American market dominating the textbook distribution (British Council, 2003). Further, data from TOEFL and University of Cambridge show figures in the range of $30 million annually on ESL/EFL proficiency testing on tests such as TOEFL and CPE. The monies gained in these various wings of the ELT market thrust forward a profession dominated by language as a commodity, driven by centre interests and professionals. According to Pennycook (1994), ELT is being considered more and more a
6
service industry where teaching is the service provided and English is the commodity. After reiterating Phillipson’s arguments about the professional practices of ELT and the fallacies or ideologies (monolingual fallacy; native speaker fallacy, etc…) sustaining these unequal practices, Pennycook goes on to highlight the perverse nature of the spread of English language teaching and learning discourse that takes on marketplace orientations and constantly stresses the “neutrality, beneficiality, and normalcy of the spread of English while ignoring a range of social, cultural, and political issues” (Pennycook, 1994, p. 180). Canagarajah (1999) furthers this argument, using statistics on the rising numbers of users of English living in countries outside of ones where English is spoken as a first or official language. He points to Crystal’s (1997) estimates that approximately one billion people worldwide now speak/use English, an increase of 1000% since 1900, with over two-thirds of that total being non-native speakers of English. (Crystal, 1997, p. 10). Canagarajah (1999) further estimates that approximately 75% of teachers of English are those categorized as non-native speakers, while approximately 95% of the materials these teachers use in the classroom were produced in England and the United States. He underscores the political and economic consequences stemming from the native speaker/non-native speaker and centre-periphery dichotomies, including the unequal pay, unequal opportunity, and manufactured consent created by an industry moved by the “force of the economic and political interests behind the ESL enterprise that even basic linguistic notions may be suppressed or distorted to support these ulterior motives” (p. 81). Finally, Phillipson (1999; 2003) himself has more recently followed up his assertions of cultural and linguistic imperialism with more apocalyptic (and unrealistic) visions of the spread of English in that it will produce a global homogenization where English is the language used for all purposes in a unified, single global market. He further contends that, in Europe specifically, adoption of English as the official European Union (EU) language will become the only working language, leading to a “limiting, technocratic dumbing-down process, and evolution of a simplified, pidginized but unstable Euro-English that inhibits creativity and expressiveness” and where the linguistic future of the EU is a “American-English only Europe” (Phillipson, 2003, p. 176). I am sometimes in awe at the astuteness and detail of Phillipson’s theory and I find it an extremely useful contribution to the understanding of how language education is a political endeavour and cannot be considered a natural phenomenon. My main criticism of the theory of linguistic imperialism is not that it is a meta−narrative or even that it functions at a macro−economic or macro−social level, which I indeed find useful, but rather that it certainly limits the ability of the principle oppressed actors of the ability to enact change while being oppressed and manipulated. As a current and former ESL/EFL teacher who has largely worked with the elite class students in Brazil, I can attest to the fact that English is indeed creating a larger barrier between haves and have-nots, but I would argue that this is beneficial not only to the ‘centre’ interests, but also the ‘periphery’ interests if these include the ruling classes in the periphery (or what could be thought of as ‘centre’ periphery interests). For example, a young person seeking a position in a multinational corporation and learning English at a private school (like the ones where I worked from 2001-2003) will then get the job over other potential employees based on English proficiency or qualifications (e.g. Cambridge certificate of proficiency in English). This person will profit from this position as will the local elite interests connected with this company, as will the transnational interests from England, the U.S.A., Canada, Spain, etc...It is certainly not a one-way street. However, as Phillipson and other highlight, the real losers in this process of language spread/teaching/learning are those without access to this resource. Phillipson does address this criticism in his book, but does not do so in
7
a manner sufficient to quell many of the critics, including those of the theorists highlighted in the following section. The following section reviews theorists who take the polar opposite position, arguing that the spread of English and ELT is a natural, neutral, and beneficial process associated with globalization as well as those who disagree with Phillipson’s vision of linguistic imperialism on a variety of grounds, including that it is deterministic, reductionist, and robs the masses of their collective ‘agency’. Arguments Against Linguistic Imperialism Natural globalization processes. English is used as an official or semi-official language in over 60 countries, and has a prominent place in a further 20. It is either dominant or well-established in all six continents. It is the main language of books, newspapers, airports and air-traffic control, medicine, diplomacy, sports, international competitions, pop music, and advertising. Over two-thirds of the world’s scientists write in English. Three quarters of the world’s mail is written in English. Of all the information in the world’s electronic retrieval systems, 80% is stored in English. English radio programmes are received by over 150 million in 120 countries. Over 50 million children study English as an additional language at primary level; over 80 million study it at secondary level (these figures exclude China!). In any one year, the British Council helps a quarter of a million foreign students to learn English, in various parts of the world. In the USA alone, 337,000 foreign students were registered in 1983. (Crystal, 1987, p. 358) These staggering numbers have increased dramatically, even since the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language was first published in 1987 to the latest publication in 2003, in which the total number of English users has risen to approximately 2.2 billion and where the expansion of the worldwide web has increased the already large proportion of communication carried out in English. Given these terrific numbers, one would expect the British to be proud of the spread of their language, but according to Crystal (1988), while all mother tongue speakers inevitably feel a modicum of pride (and relief) that it is their language which is succeeding, there is also an element of concern, as they see what happens to the language as it spreads around the world…Changes are perceived as instances of deterioration in standards. (p. 10). While this paper could spend time analyzing this callously pompous attitude towards “proper” language, I will leave this discussion of authenticity and standards until the final section. For now, let us delve into the three main arguments for the benefits of the natural spread of English. Phillipson (1992) himself outlined these discourses or arguments (again, which I would label ideologies of language):
•
capacities (English-instrinsic arguments, what English is)
•
resources: English-extrinsic arguments, what English has
•
uses: English-functional arguments, what English does (Phillipson, 1992, p. 271) 8
English-intrinsic arguments generally refer to English as rich, varied, noble, well-adapted to change, interesting, engaging, etc…These arguments are mostly based on a view (whether implicit or explicit) that English is innately gifted (divinely, some might say). Note the divine aura of Kachru and Quirk’s (1981) observation of the spread of English: “In becoming something close to a universal language, English has accomplished something close to a linguistic miracle” (p. 5) Further, as Crystal (1984) noted, “I have never doubted the existence of a universal interest in the English language…The language seems to provide a talking point for everyone” Intrinsic arguments for the innate benefits of English are generally made in contrast with other languages that are positioned as not having these qualities. Phillipson argues that therein lies the linguicism. Another perfect example of this attitude is from Wardaugh (1987): …since no cultural requirements are tied to the learning of English, you can learn it without having to subscribe to another set of values…tied to no particular social, political, economic, or religious system, nor to a specific racial or cultural group, English belongs to everyone or to no one, or it at least is quite often regarded as having these properties. (Wardaugh, 1987, p. 15) This is exactly the type of benign argument made by millions of language schools to billions of students worldwide, one that I helped make to the many students I taught in Brazil. English-extrinsic arguments refer to the material resources that English has (textbooks, experts, etc…). These material resources (guns, books, capital, as Phillipson cheekily identifies) are deployed along with immaterial resources (knowledge, skills) and material resources (money) are potentially converted into immaterial ones (language knowledge). Importantly, as Phillipson notes, this discourse allows ‘centre’ interests to claim authenticity and greater knowledge than ‘periphery’ interests, producing an unequal distribution of power (e.g. textbook production and distribution). Again, if you have ever seen marketing for an English school abroad, these messages read loud and clear. Finally, English-functional arguments state that the resources English is well-positioned to offer wanton consumers with access to modernization, technology, and science. Also, it is posited as (more so than other languages) able to unite people from around the world with the promise of furthering international understanding. Were this true of English, the world’s problems would have been solved already, would they not? These arguments are strong only to the point that it becomes a cyclical argument. Yes, English is, has, and does these things, but at what cost and to whose detriment? This is the main gist of Phillipson’s argument: one cannot separate language use from the material reality of how this use benefits some and not others. Scholars (including many linguists) who point to these amazingly common-sense arguments for the benign nature of the spread of English are not the only critics of the theory of linguistic imperialism, however. Deterministic, reductionist, and denying agency. In his 2006 book Language and Politics, John Joseph harshly criticizes the theory of linguistic imperialism, outlining his own and others’ critiques of Phillipson’s theory. First, Joseph asserts that the theory of linguistic imperialism embodies “an imperialism every bit as bad as the one it purports to critique” (p. 53). The assertion here is that by denying third-world (yes, he uses this term) people agency to decide (or by saying they are victims of false consciousness) whether they learn English for their own benefit and are simply objects of hegemonic forces, is patronizing. He goes so far as to state that by positioning these third-world subjects as “pawns of a centre-controlled system” (p. 53), Phillipson is dehumanizing them. There is definitely some credence to this argument, and Joseph extends his harsh critique,
9
stating, “Phillipson permits them [third-world subjects] to ‘choose’ only if the choice is of their traditional language – his choice for them – whereas if they choose a world language (or a less geographically restricted one) they have been co-opted by the forces of the Centre” (p. 53). Although Phillipson states that Joseph’s argument, “is completely unacademic and based on someone who did not read the book in any detail” (personal communication), it is nonetheless a good one in that it contests the zero-sum nature of the linguistic imperialism hypothesis. Further criticism comes from an unexpected source, that of Marxist linguist Marnie Holborow (1999). She follows some of the main arguments made by many others and adds a relevant critique that this theoretical framework of centre-periphery or north-south is insufficient to describe the material reality of the ways in which English benefits ruling class interests by local elites in many periphery countries and adds that Phillipson’s answer to English hegemony is reactionary in that it “locks him into an anti-imperialist strategy of nationalism and the promotion of national languages” (p. 77). She further states that his theory of linguistic imperialism is counter-revolutionary in that it plays in to the hands of nationalism (an enemy of class solidarity) and takes away the agency of its victims: “In short, local ruling classes come to articulate ideologies that operate in their own interests, and are not just the ventriloquists’ dummies of their Western masters” (p. 78). She posits that these world citizens are well able to use language (even English) as a tool for either domination or their own liberation from imperial and class-based oppression and that national languages (Phillipson’s alternative to English) have not shown to necessarily “lead in emancipator directions” (p. 80). Holborrow has some good points, including the deterministic nature of the overall linguistic imperialism theory (a charge Phillipson himself makes against Holborrow’s strict Marxist approach to understanding the spread of English), but does a disservice in dismissing it as reactionary when it indeed points out a very real danger, a transnational one that is perhaps more menacing than the nationalism she rails against 3 . Ultimately, Holborrow’s strongest criticism is that the material reality of how language is used to maintain ruling class interests is not sufficiently explained by Phillipson’s theory - a fair critique in my opinion. The following section outlines the most widespread critiques 4 of linguistic imperialism, ones that argue for the appropriation/resistance of imperialism through English. English: Resistance and appropriation. Much of the criticism of Phillipson’s theory of linguistic imperialism has come from those who wholeheartedly appreciate his contributions to the field of Applied Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. From Pennycook (1994; 1998; 2007) to Canagarajah (1999; 2005) to Rajagopalan (1999; 2005), these critics have not disagreed that language spread and language teaching are political in nature and must be viewed as such, but rather have disagreed with the grand narrative style in which Phillipson has presented these forces. This section reviews this largely postmodern (and postcolonial) critique of linguistic imperialism, investigating three scholars’ contentions with Phillipson’s theory. Pennycook, in his 1994 book The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language makes many of the same assertions Phillipson does about the global inequities surrounding the spread of English and the uncritical way in which the field of Applied Linguistics has viewed English language teaching. He strongly asserts that the spread of English and English language teaching has 3
I would argue that nationalism can be turned into bloc-nationalism or internationalism and therefore the state can play a progressive role in the transformation of the modes of production to the working class.
4
Many of the critiques are postmodernist ones and therefore it is not surprising that these critiques are the most common given the domination of this philosophical positioning in academia, including in the field of Applied Linguistics.
10
certainly served both American and British interests, but he disagrees with Phillipson’s theory for explaining these global inequities, claiming Phillipson’s use of Dependency Theory (Galtung-inspired) is determinist, reductionist, and positivist. Pennycook, heavily inspired by Foucault, sees discourses and discursive practices as the arenas where power plays itself out. In this culturalist/postmodernist view, he argues that Applied Linguistics as a field has been “disciplined to suit Western interests and educationalists, policy-makers and various experts have created discourses which exert domination over people” (Pennycook, 1994, p. 61). Pennycook (1995) attacks what he sees as Phillipson’s neoMarxist position as reductionist and unable to explain ‘culture’ while seeing “people as passive consumers of hegemonic cultural norms” (p. 48). Pennycook (1995) argues, The Third World is subjected to a form of surveillance – a ‘normalizing gaze’…by the ‘powerful and knowing’ central tower, the Western intellectual and political institutions that construct discourses on the Third World and which lead the objects of that surveillance to become ‘the principle of their own subjection. (p. 49) More recently, Pennycook (2007) has contended “there are good reasons to question visions of cultural and linguistic imperialism whereby the English language and American popular culture are homogenizing the world as they are thrust on local populations” (p. 97). He suggests the need to investigate the complexity of this spread of language and culture, specifically, not only the “civilizing and enlightening, conceptualizing and developing, capitalizing and universalizing, corporatizing and globalizing but also the processes of transgression and resistance, translation and rearticulation, transformation and reconstitution, translocation and appropriation, and transculturation and hybridization” (Pennycook, 2007, p. 97). This leads into Pennycook’s view of the worldliness of English and how it is appropriated and used as a site of resistance throughout the world. In his classic (albeit progressive) postmodernist view, English is indeed worldly and should be understood as the rejection of a unitary subject in favour of a notion of multiple subjectivities constituted by different discourses (most recently discussed as the influence of English on rap culture around the world). Ultimately, Pennycook advocates for a postmodernist project of critical pedagogy, where teachers can act as transformative intellectuals and influence social change/transformation by bringing social awareness to their students. I cannot help but agree with many of his criticisms of Phillipson’s theory and I support any project that looks to transform students’ consciousness, but I have some serious qualms with the way in which Pennycook suggests going about this. For a change in students’ awareness (linguistic or otherwise), a teacher must guide students to where they see the essence and not the appearance of social relations. This cannot be done by complexifying these relations of power to a point where all is relativized, diving into the realm of identity politics and ‘culture’. Despite my contestation, Pennycook is not alone in criticizing Phillipson’s neo-Marxist position from a postmodern/postcolonial angle. Suresh Canagarajah is another leading figure in the field of Applied Linguistics and has written extensively on the notion of linguistic imperialism and its relation to English language teaching, particularly in his 1999 book Resisting Linguistic Imperialism. In this book, Canagarajah describes how teachers and students in war-torn Sri Lanka culturally and linguistically resist the colonial nature of English as it is presented in their classroom (and textbooks), while appropriating it for their own subversive communication purposes. Canagarajah uses this context to contest the overarching theory of linguistic imperialism, preferring to focus on the “microsocial level of everyday life” (p. 6) as opposed to the
11
macroscopic theoretical perspective. While agreeing with Phillipson and Pennycook that there is an insidious form of linguistic imperialism afoot in postcolonial settings (even noting how it has been internalized by his Tamil research subjects), Canagarajah cites the same historical conditions as spurring a less-documented, but equally important appropriation and resistance by postcolonial subjects (particularly, brown ones). We repeated the meaningless phrases Like the yellow birds In the lajanamara grass The teacher was an Acoli But he spoke the same language As the white priests And he tried To force his words Through his blocked nose. He sounded like A loosely strung drum. p’Bitek, Song of Lawino (In Canagarajah, 1999) Canagarajah powerfully elicits images of teacher and student resistance to the curriculum and points to the importance of recognizing the different ‘cultures’ students bring with them to the classroom and “the ways in which these mediate the lesson” (p. 98). He insists that, unlike the passive position attributed these actors in a theory of linguistic imperialism, these students “are not passive in the face of ideological domination by center curriculum and teaching materials” (p. 99). Accordingly, he also highlights teacher resistance to and appropriation of the dominant curriculum, where teacher methods are affected by their levels of “suspicion, opposition, and disinterest” (p. 121) and where curriculum is appropriated “to different degrees in terms of the needs and values of the local communities” (p. 122) Ultimately, Canagarajah calls for a renewed focus on these local struggles for appropriation and their importance in highlighting this as an ongoing dynamic that characterizes social relations for marginalized communities. He forcefully argues for teacher education and critical teaching and learning for transformative purposes. He also warns that to overestimate these signs of resistance and appropriation as indications of imminent political transformation or social reconstruction is to simplify things, but to ignore these acts of resistance and appropriation in EFL is to ignore the potential of transforming these learning sites into critical learning sites where languages can be used in tandem (codeswitching 5 ) to navigate a nefarious world. While I wholeheartedly agree with Canagarajah that codeswitching is both a cognitively and affectively beneficial tool for language learning and a potentially effective tool for promoting social transformation in the EFL classroom, I again question the postmodern zeal with which grand narratives are thrust aside in favour of decentralized understandings. However, I do see a common ground here between postmodern/postcolonial and neo-Marxist positions in what Canagarajah suggests is the need to build curricula based on grassroots needs and student interests. In the following section, I will relate this to a grander vision of critical English language teaching and English language teacher education. First, 5
Codeswitching can be defined as the inter- or intra-language use of two or more languages, generally following the grammatical rules of both (e.g. Eu vi o cara ontem a noite e ele estava completamente chapado, I’m telling you) [I saw this guy last night and he was completely wasted, I’m telling you]
12
though, let us review what one other critic, Kanavillil Rajagopalan, has to say about the theory of linguistic imperialism and how it relates specifically to the Brazilian context. Linguistic imperialism and English language teaching in Brazil
English is now officially the number one foreign language taught and learned in Brazil (Rajagopalan & Rajagopalan, 2005). The explosive proliferation of private, commercial English as a foreign language (EFL) institutes marks the pervasive nature of the demand for English in Brazil. Although exact figures are not available, it is thought that millions of students now study English in thousands of private EFL schools across Brazil (Bohn, 2003). Recently, Canagarajah (2005) has estimated that four of five teachers in global English language teaching (ELT) are those classified as Non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs). This figure is almost certainly much higher (probably closer to nine of ten) in Brazil. Despite the preeminence of NNESTs in Brazilian ELT, those teachers labeled as NNESTs are treated unequally in the ELT profession in Brazil (Corcoran, 2008; Rajagopalan, 2005). Other researchers have pointed to the inequity in global ELT, highlighting the unequal pay, unequal opportunity, and unequal status of NNESTs (many of whom are more experienced teachers) as compared to their NEST counterparts (Auerbach, 1993; Canagarajah, 1999; Phillipson, 1992). However, my recent MA research findings highlight not the traditional NESTNNEST asymmetrical power relationship, but an unequal power relationship between NNESTs themselves, with those NNESTs with experience living abroad enjoying greater status than those NNESTs without this experience (Corcoran, 2008). I suggest that the main variables accounting for some NNESTs’ higher status are a near-native accent, better oral fluency, and greater “cultural” understanding of “English-speaking culture”. This is, perhaps, simply a reproduction of the traditional unequal power relations found between NESTs and NNESTs in a context where no NESTs are present. It could also be argued that these teachers are working with certain language ideologies, or, partial/fragmented understandings about language (and language teaching) that are pervasive in global ELT. These ideologies potentially aid in reproducing the unequal relations of power among teachers in the Brazilian market, one where language education is treated as a commodity. The implications and conclusions sections of this paper address these findings in more detail. Now, let us focus on Rajagopalan and his rejection of Phillipson’s theory of linguistic imperialism. In a recent action research study carried out in his native Brazil, Rajagopalan (2005) emphatically opens with the statement, “Non-native English-speaking teachers are typically treated as second class citizens in the world of language teaching. The problem is especially acute in the realm of teaching EFL” (p. 283). Although Rajagopalan is known for his problematization and critique (deterministic) of Phillipson’s notion of linguistic imperialism in relation to Brazilian ELT, he nonetheless admits that, in his home country of Brazil, the differential treatment of NESTs and NNESTs is ever apparent and results in a situation where “many non-native English-speaking teachers need to be re-educated so as to recognize that many of their job-related woes are actually the result of a well-orchestrated program designed to guarantee privileged status for certain groups of people to the detriment of others” (p. 293). Rajagopalan (1999), however, rejects the ‘rhetoric’ surrounding linguistic imperialism, suggesting the fears surrounding Phillipson’s theory are, …misplaced, not because the knowledge of the English language does not empower its users in an increasingly competitive world economy, and hence contribute to an accentuation of existing power inequalities, or maybe the creation of new inequalities, but because it is in the very nature of human languages, all of them, to be riven by power inequalities. (Rajagopalan, 1999, p. 205)
13
He further argues that to make EFL teachers, especially non-native ones, feel guilty about being complicit in a “gigantic neo-colonialist enterprise in the guise of emancipatory pedagogy” (p. 205) is nonsense and that teachers should instead be aware that power is exercised in and through language and that linguistic equality (or the notion of equality that Phillipson suggests) is a naïve notion at best. Rajagopalan treads along a slippery slope when he simultaneously identifies the inequality of the EFL teaching profession while railing against the linguistic absurdity of expecting to do anything about this inequality. To me, this raises a serious limitation to his criticisms of Phillipson’s theory. Regardless of whether history has shown us that language is power and power is exercised through language, this is no reason not to use the language learning and teaching sites for contestation of hegemony or unequal power relations. To his credit, Rajagopalan does repeatedly highlight the need for language teacher education that confirms the merits of local understandings (language and culture) when teaching English in a foreign language context. I will discuss the need for changes in English language teaching and teacher education in the following section. Implications for Global ELT & Teacher Education: Critical Pedagogy and its Relevance in a Postmodern World So, after a lengthy review of the literature for and against Phillipson’s theory of linguistic imperialism, it seems clear that, regardless of whether one agrees with the theory or not, it has had a significant impact on the fields of Applied Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Further, the arguments for this theory, whether in direct lock-step with Phillipson, or altering/complexifying his theory somewhat, are much stronger than those arguments forwarded by theorists claiming the benign spread of English and English language teaching to the benefit of the world and its citizens. As a teacher and future teacher educator, I feel Phillipson’s theory has direct relevance on English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching and EFL teacher education. This section outlines changes I feel are necessary to teaching practice in EFL teaching and teacher education. EFL teaching. Perhaps Phillipson’s most important contribution to teachers from his book was the explicit questioning of the ideology behind the concept of the monolingual native speaker. He asserts that there is no scientific validity to support the idea neither that a native speaker is the ideal speaker nor that she is the ideal language teacher, especially in EFL contexts: The native speaker fallacy has served the interests of the Centre, while binding both its representatives and their collaborators in the Periphery to its ideological and structural consequences. It has diverted attention from the flourishing of local pedagogical initiative that could build on local strengths and linguistic realities (Phillipson, 1992, p. 199) This is an ideology that must change among EFL teachers themselves. This is no easy task as the largest employers of EFL teachers-for-profit private EFL institutions-seem to have little reason to challenge the native speaker ideology as it is good for business; a vicious cycle as more native speaker teachers (whether qualified or not) converts into more profits as it increases student demand thereby increasing student demand for native teachers necessitating the hiring of more by these schools6. Further, the majority of native English-speaking teachers in global ELT are monolingual, at least when 6
Fetishistic behaviour, I would argue.
14
they begin their careers7. This then leads to the reproduction of another one of what Phillipson labels fallacies (I label them ideologies), that English is best taught monolingually. As noted earlier, this ideology has political, social, economic, and pedagogical consequences, creating unequal relations of power in global ELT and devaluing local languages. Further, this ideology is reproduced and internalized among non-native English-speaking teachers, often leading to what many have argued is pedagogically flawed teaching (Cook, 2005; Corcoran, 2008). As many of the theorists reviewed in this paper have argued, a respect for local dialects and/or local languages is sorely lacking in a profession driven by language standards and standard language. More and more research is showing the direct cognitive and affective benefits of L1 inclusion in the EFL classroom (Cummins, 2008; Macaro, 2005; Swain & Lapkin, 2000). This has not, however, translated into a major change in pedagogical practice in global ELT, and this must change. Teachers must be aware of the resources they bring to the classroom (whether linguistic, cultural, political, artistic, etc…), and incorporate these resources to achieve both improved student learning outcomes, and, more importantly (at least in my opinion), increased awareness of the potential of language in perpetuating social inequality and/or, as I will argue in the following sub-section, affecting social change. EFL teacher education. Although many voices have been raised concerning the perpetuation of global inequalities since the publication of Linguistic Imperialism, the majority of these voices have fallen on deaf ears in the ELT profession. Perhaps one reason for this is that many of the voices that have been raised have been those of theorists and not practitioners. By and large, the profession as a whole is still guided by an adherence to the ‘professionalism’ and standards of teaching as opposed to seeing itself as connected to any broader social processes outside the classroom. Why then should critical teacher education be considered important in a profession seemingly resistant to change and dominated by interests largely served by maintaining the status quo? I argue that it is exactly because of the conservative nature of the profession (and the fields of Applied Linguistics and SLA, for that matter) that a project of critical language teacher education be implemented by teacher educators and teacher education programs, both domestically and abroad. I further argue that language teacher education must radically address its generally vocationally-oriented and/or social constructivist approach to enable change to the inequitable reality and trajectory of the English language teaching profession and inspire both teachers and students to use language learning/teaching sites for the progressive transformation of our collective world. First, teacher education programs and workshops should make central a critical approach to commonsense (ideological) assumptions about language use, language teaching, and language learning. This approach should generally begin (as should all teaching-learning situations) from what the students know, or think they know. From there, teacher educators should make these language ideologies a central part of debate and critique as the workshop/program progresses. One specific topic to be addressed is the notion of Standard English versus World Englishes. This paper has, until this point, avoided discussion of this highly relevant and charged topic. Many researchers have made the point that the notion of a Standard English is socially constructed and serves the interests of those who naturally have greater access to this variety of the language (Brutt-Griffler, 2002; Canagarajah, 1999; Holborrow, 1999; Kachru, 1986; Lippi-Green, 1997; Pennycook, 1998). Few of these researchers have suggested making a discussion of the merits of Standard English(es), 7
There are no statistics to verify this claim, but I would suspect that the average career of a NEST is quite short, indeed, as it is usually a transitory or voyageuristic professional phase in their lives.
15
vernacular Englishes, and World Englishes central to a teacher education curriculum, but I believe it is high time for such a move. When the amount of EFL learners are expanding at an exponential rate (particularly in what Phillipson labels the ‘periphery’) and new varieties of English are popping up around the world, a debate as to the merits of this Englishes as opposed to what many in the profession term “proper” English is overdue. However, this debate, in my opinion, should not be centered solely around the postmodern/postcolonial notion of ‘othering’ or ‘difference’, but rather on the classist and racist principles behind the push for standardization and standard varieties of English (and other languages). Next, the question of the native English speaker should be central to any teacher education program. As many researchers have pointed out, the ideology surrounding the assumed superiority of the native speaker has consequences for English language teachers and students around the world. Thus, teacher educators should challenge students on their preconceived notions of who makes a better teacher–native or non-native speakers–or if this dichotomy so readily-accepted really stands up to close scrutiny. This is not an easy task as, at times, it may create intense debate and seriously challenge students’ deeply held convictions about certain issues surrounding the English language. However, this topic is absolutely crucial to helping address the issue of low self-efficacy among teachers labeled as non-native English speakers, those who are most vulnerable (as are their students) to succumbing to the all-too-familiar colonized consciousness allowing for the reproduction of unequal power relations in ELT. Indeed, there is even a model 8 for including this debate in English language teacher education (Brutt-Griffler & Samimy, 1999). Again, it is incumbent upon the teacher educator to spur critical reflection on these issues and not let it deteriorate into simply another discussion of ‘difference’ and ‘culture’, where any action to change the profession or potentially challenge student beliefs is brushed aside in a postmodern sweep of relativity. Next, why not use Phillipson’s (or others) works directly and challenge teachers to consider the notion, contested by many such as Rajagopalan (1999), that teachers are acting as pawns of hegemonic centre interests by teaching English as a foreign language abroad. This is, of course, more relevant for teacher education in what Phillipson labels as ‘the periphery’, but should not be discounted in places such as Canada, where large portions of graduate programs are filled by international students likely to return to their home countries to take up positions of influence in the profession, thereby influencing even more future teachers. This seems to me such a logical topic, but one I have never seen adequately addressed in an ESL/EFL class or workshop. For all of these topics, it is vital for the teacher educator to have a large list of resources available for students to access in order to inform themselves further (e.g. recent empirical or theoretical papers) as there are generally no right or wrong answers to these questions, but a critical approach to addressing these questions will surely build language teacher awareness and perhaps influence their consciousness. Finally, one issue that has dominated the field of critical language pedagogy is that of language awareness (Cummins, 2001; Fairclough, 1992; Pennycook, 1999). Many critical pedagogues have argued that to empower students, teachers must make explicit the multiple ways language use and discourse is socially constructed and therefore reflects not only certain ways of knowing, but also certain interests. Nowhere is this more apparent in the world of advertising, for example, and using common ads as departure points for discussions about the role of transnational corporations (e.g. Coca8
Brutt-Griffler and Samimy (1999) report success in implementing a self-reflective component regarding assumed Native English-speaking teacher superiority among Non-native English-speaking students in a MA TESOL program in the United States.
16
cola, Monsanto) in exacerbating global inequality is a great way 9 to stimulate discussion on topics of social importance. Teachers must be made aware of the power of language to change and be changed by people in material ways. This means bringing notions of social justice to the forefront even at beginner levels (codeswitching should be allowed and even encouraged). Teacher education programs/workshops should be geared towards encouraging teachers (or teachers-to-be) to engage with social issues that are of import to themselves and their students (e.g. landless people’s movement in Brazil for Brazilian students). In this way, it is possible not to create a revolution or engage in lofty goals of critical pedagogy per se, but to simultaneously connect to student interests while using the language to address issues of social justice and (in)equality. In these multiple ways, the language classroom can become a place for critical inquiry and debate and maybe, just maybe, a site for growing or stimulating social transformation. This, in my humble opinion, is not too much to ask. Conclusions This paper has outlined the arguments regarding the imperialist spread of English and English language teaching put forth by Robert Phillipson in his 1992 book Linguistic Imperialism, along with multiple arguments supporting, refuting, and transforming his original arguments. The implications of this debate for teacher education have been discussed, including a call by the author for a more critical approach to language teacher education that would include a greater focus on debunking certain language ideologies pervasive in the ELT profession. It was noted that teacher educators must take an active, engaged role in stimulating this critical dialogue and inquiry, at times risking “crossing the line” in order to challenge teachers or teachers-to-be to materially change their classrooms and their worlds. I would like to end this paper with a fresh call for researchers and theorists from across disciplines, but specifically from the field of Applied Linguistics, to recognize the need for putting political, economic, and social inequality at the forefront of their pedagogical radars when teaching 10 . For far too long, the profession of English language teaching has suffered from a vocational focus on the ‘proper’ way(s) to teach, how to manage classrooms, how to help students ‘succeed’ functionally in the world without attending to questions of social inequality, especially economic inequality. Without being combative, and with all due respect to the more progressive postmodern teacher educators and theorists, works like Phillipsons’ Linguistic Imperialism are absolutely essential to increasing social awareness among students and teachers, and now is the time, if there ever was any, to include class as a main focus in your class; the retreat into a relativizing discussion of culture, difference, and dispersed power has not helped change the world for the better, but rather has distracted us from the fight for a just world. Using Linguistic Imperialism as an aid in this fight is a good start.
9
This is simply one example among many of how to make the language learning classroom a critical space.
10
Or researching, for that matter.
17
References Allman, P. (2007). On Marx: An Introduction to the Revolutionary Intellect of Karl Marx. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Allman, P. (1999). Revolutionary Social Transformation: Democratic Hopes, Political Possibilities and Critical Education. London: Bergin and Garvey. Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. London: New Left Books. Atkinson, D. (1987). The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected resource? ELT Journal, 41 (4), 241-247. Auerbach, E. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27 (1), 9-32. Braine, G. (2003). Non-native educators in English language teaching. Newark, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Braine, G. (2005). A history of research on non-native speaker English teachers. In E. Llurda (Ed.) Non-native language teachers: Perspectives, challenges and contributions to the profession. New York: Springer. Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A Study of its Development. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Brutt-Griffler, J. & Samimy, K. K. (1999). Revisiting the colonial in the postcolonial: Critical praxis for nonnative-English-speaking teachers in a TESOL program. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 413431. Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Canagarajah, A. S. (2005). Interrogating the native speaker fallacy. In E. Llurda (Ed.) Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession. New York: Springer. Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speakers in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33 (2), 185-209. Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 402-423. Cook, V. (2005). Basing teaching on the L2 User. In E. Llurda (Ed.) Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession. New York: Springer. Cooke, D. (1988). Ties that constrict: English as a Trojan horse in Cumming, A, Gagne, A, Dawson J. (eds) Awarenesses: Proceedings of the 1987 TESL Ontario Conference. Toronto: TESL Ontario, pp. 56-62.
18
Corcoran, J. (2008). L1 in the L2 Classroom: Framing Brazilian EFL teacher beliefs and practices. MA Thesis: University of Toronto. Cummins, J. (2008). Teaching for transfer: Challenging the two solitudes assumption in bilingual education. In J. Cummins & N. Hornberger (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 23, 1528-1538. New York: Springer. Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. 2nd Edition. Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education. Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DeSwaan, A. (2001). Words of the World. The global Language System. Cambridge: Polity Press. Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An Introduction. London: Verso. Fairclough, N. (2006). Language and Globalization. New York: Routledge. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press. Fanon, F. (1967). Black skin, white masks. New York: Grove Press. Galtung, J. (1980). The True Worlds. A Transnational Perspective. New York: The Free Press. Gee, J. (1996). The Social Mind: Ideology & Social Practice. New York: Bergin and Garvey. Gouldner, A. W. (1976). The Dialectic of Ideology and Technology: The Origins, Grammar, and Future of Ideology. New York: Seabury Press. Holborrow, M. (1999). The Politics of English: A Marxist View of Language. London: Sage. Howatt, A. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Joseph, J. (2006). Language and Politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Kachru, B. B. (1981) An overview of language policy and planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 2, 5-7. Kachru, B. B. (1986). The power and politics of English. World Englishes, 5 (2), 34-46. Kachru, B. B. (1992). Teaching World Englishes. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue. English across cultures, 355-365. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. London & New York: Longman.
19
Macaro, E. (2005). Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy. In E. Llurda (Ed.) Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession. New York: Springer. Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1989). The German Ideology. C. J. Arthur (Ed.). New York: International Publishers. Ministry of Education (1956). Report of the Official Committee on the Teaching of English Overseas. London: Ministry of Education. Mohanty, A. K. (2009). Perpetuating Inequality: Language disadvantage and Capability Deprivation of Tribal Mother Tongue Speakers in India. In Harbert, W., McConnell-Ginet, S, Miller, A, and Whitman, J. (Eds) Language and Poverty. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Naysmith, J. (1987). English as imperialism? Language Issues, 1(2), 3-5. Pennycook, A. (2007). Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. New York: Routledge. Pennycook, A. (1999). Introduction: Critical Approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, Special Issue, pp. 329-348. Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the Discourses of Colonialism. London: Routledge. Pennycook, A. (1995). English in the world/the world in English. In (Ed) J. Tollefson Power and Inequality in Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pennycook, A. (1994). The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. London & New York: Longman. Phillipson, R. (2003). English Only Europe? Challenging Language Policy. London: Routledge. Phillipson, R. (1999). Voice in global English: unheard chords in Crystal loud and clear. Review of D. Crystal, English as a global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 265-276. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1996). English only worldwide, or language ecology. TESOL Quarterly, 30 (3), 429-452. Rajagopalan, K. (2005). Non-native speaker teachers of English and their anxieties: Ingredients for an experiment in action research. In E. Llurda (Ed.) Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession. New York: Springer. Rajagopalan, K. (1999). Of EFL teachers, conscience, and cowardice. ELT Journal, 53(3), 200-206. Romaine, S. (2009). Biodiversity, Linguistic Diversity and Poverty: Some Global Patterns and Missing Links. In Harbert, W., McConnell-Ginet, S, Miller, A, and Whitman, J. (Eds) Language and Poverty. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
20
Sachs, J. (2005). The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. New York: The Penguin Press. Schieffelin, B. B. (1998). Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic Genocide in Education or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: the uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research. 4, 251-274. Thompson, J. B. (1984). Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Tollefson, J. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: language policy in the community. London: Longman. Wardaugh, R. (1987). Languages in Competition: dominance, Diversity, and Decline. Oxford: Blackwell. Widdowson, H. G. (1996). Authenticity and autonomy in ELT. ELT Journal, 50(1), 67-8. Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21
