Professional Documents
Culture Documents
KEYWORDS ""
WIDTH "150"
VOFFSET "4">
Paul Bruthiaux
National University of Singapore
Introduction
The cluster of economic, military, political, and technological factors that led to
the worldwide dominance of English as a language of wider communication is
well documented. Over a decade ago, Grabe (1988) linked this process to the
role English plays in encoding technological information and permitting access
to that information. Grabe also argued that access to English was a prerequisite
come to feel the effect of standardization as a result of the stable nature of the
religious content it carried and the strongly centralizing tendencies of the
Catholic Church. Nor is the role until relatively recently of Latin as a lingua
franca in parts of the western world likely to be much of a guide because it
remained the preserve of small professional elites, far removed in nature from
the large numbers that today take part in interethnic and supranational
communication involving some variety of English or other.
Since no close precedent exists on which to base predictions, the linguistic
seer is left to divine future trends from a combination of geopolitical trends
and the sociolinguistic characteristics of languages with global potential. With
this in mind, I consider the possibility that change may occur gradually and
that a power may emerge later in this century to threaten American geo-
political supremacy and with it the dominance of English as a global language.
I argue that even in the event of such a shift in geopolitical circumstances, the
dominant language associated with that emerging power would first have to
arrest and then reverse the advantage English now derives from critical mass.
To do this, a global challenger would need to benefit from three key factors.
Firstly, it would need to possess a set of linguistic characteristics that would
facilitate its acquisition as a second language by individuals with largely
instrumental motivations. Among these characteristics are minimal inflection-
al morphology, non-tonal phonology, and a non-logographic script. Secondly,
to have a better chance of evolving such a set of favorable characteristics if it
did not possess them already, a language with worldwide ambition would need
to benefit from weak political and administrative control over form and usage
and enjoy the freedom to accommodate unplanned, user-driven change
leading to both structural simplification and a degree of creolization as the
language adapts to local conditions in a multiplicity of sociolinguistic settings.
Finally, a language competing for global prominence would have to be
perceived — rightly or wrongly — as carrying the kind of sociocultural content
and economic promise likely to fire the imagination of potential users and
motivate them to undertake the task of learning the language, a challenge of
some magnitude to most adult learners.
Because it focuses on hypothetical challengers, much of the argument
advanced in this paper is theoretical. In practice, regardless of their socio-
cultural or linguistic characteristics and despite large populations of native
speakers, most languages that might hypothetically compete with English for a
global role are likely to remain closely tied to a political or economic entity with
little chance of achieving significant socioeconomic prominence beyond their
<LINK "bru-r48">
"bru-r49">
"bru-r18">
regional base or their ethnic diaspora in the foreseeable future. The list of
languages matching this description is a long one, and inclusion or omission is
to some extent subjective and potentially controversial. Certainly, the combina-
tion of sheer numbers of speakers and current socioeconomic conditions
suggests that the list might include — but by no means be limited to —
languages such as Bengali, Hindi, Kiswahili, Malay, and Portuguese. For the
purpose of this discussion, however, the precise list is largely immaterial since
the case made here is largely hypothetical and evidence is better drawn from
languages with a well-documented history of global reach or at least a widely
reported claim to such a status. Thus, I discuss Arabic and Spanish, two
languages for which, despite a large and rapidly growing base of speakers and a
long history of supranational reach, no predictions of likely global dominance
can be made on the basis of current geopolitical trends. Also discussed exten-
sively here are Japanese and German, each with a narrow local base associated
with relative economic superpower status. Russian also receives attention
because, despite the recent setbacks suffered by its geopolitical base, it long
symbolized the major competition to the ideology represented by (American)
English. A perennial candidate for a global role is Esperanto, a language
designed precisely to play a role in supranational communication, a vision
periodically restated by its promoters (for a recent restatement of the case for
Esperanto, see Tonkin 2000). Also discussed is French, because of its history as
the erstwhile language of supranational communication among western elites
and because many lessons can be drawn from well-documented efforts to
preserve that privileged position. Finally, Chinese receives special attention
because recent growth in the economic profile and military assertiveness of
China predicts that, despite the tumultuous events once again shaking parts of
the Muslim world, it is from that country rather than from any conceivable
alliance of Arabic-speaking nations that any significant challenge to American
geopolitical dominance is likely to emerge in the 21st century.
While the critical mass increasingly favoring English alters the dynamics
obtaining across linguistic constellations and raises the bar for potential
challengers, a number of linguistic factors also allow predictions to be made
regarding their eventual success. In principle, all languages have the potential to
Predicting challenges to English 135
fulfill any communicative role. In practice, languages are shaped to some extent
by their context of use. Like all natural organisms, languages consist of a set of
characteristics evolving slowly over time, partly randomly and partly in re-
sponse to changes in the communicative needs of their speakers as these
rearrange themselves geographically and socially. For example, the inflectional
complexity of languages such as Icelandic or Finnish is clearly no impediment
to the learning of these languages by young children born among a stable
population, and thus is under no pressure from within to change in the
direction of greater morphological simplicity. However, in the (highly unlikely)
event of geopolitical circumstances turning such a language into a contender for
a global role, it would surely come under pressure from without to simplify or
see current and potential users favor better adapted — that is, easier to master
— competitors.
To be sure, modern languages do not evolve entirely as a result of uncon-
trollable environmental forces. Just as modern humans have gradually gained
a sufficient degree of control over their circumstances for reproductive success
to no longer be determined by adaptive reactions to raw environmental forces,
modern societies have devised institutional tools that allow them to generate
and steer change in both language form and language use, with some success as
regards writing conventions though generally far less in other areas. Moreover,
there is no denying that English owes its current dominant position in large part
to historical and geopolitical forces, not primarily linguistic ones. However, it
can be argued that the metamorphosis of English from a regional to global role
was facilitated by the fact that the language had already undergone a process of
linguistic change, leaving it with a set of linguistic characteristics that made
subsequent adaptive change less traumatic. By this token, a challenger for the
role of dominant global language would have to either possess a set of linguistic
characteristics that would make the transition to that role less structurally
disruptive or be allowed to evolve one thanks to minimal interference from
institutional standardizing forces.
The degree of complexity of this set of linguistic characteristics matters
because learners of both first and second languages are attentive to a number of
competing linguistic cues in their search for form-meaning connections and in
their attempt to discover patterns in the input. Among these cues are morpho-
logical inflection, tonality, and word order. While identifying and decoding
each of these cues presents a special kind of difficulty, facing all of them at once
in a hypothetical new language would present learners with an insurmountable
cognitive challenge and make that language unlearnable. In practice, unlike
<LINK "bru-r53">
"bru-r47">
"bru-r13">
"bru-r33">
"bru-r25">
setting. In the words of Nadkarni (1992: 328), “the function of a world language
is to foster an international or global consciousness without suppressing
diversity in its manifestations.” Bex (1993) argues that the notion of Standard
English is more a social myth than a recognizable variety and that the English
teaching curriculum should incorporate elements of regional varieties as well as
supranational features of the language. Hyde (1998) makes the case for the
formal adoption of post-colonial models of English and for the incorporation
of the objective of intercultural competence in the language teaching curricu-
lum. Similarly, Pakir (1999) argues that as English becomes an increasingly
globalized resource, it must bend to the changing identities of its many users
and if necessary distance itself from Anglo-Saxon cultural assumptions,
especially in the context of language teaching. Chisanga and Kamwangamalu
(1997) and McArthur (1999), among others, put the issue in terms of the
ownership of the language by its current users as opposed to its originators,
regardless of geographic location. Bamgbose (1998) notes that, if an interna-
tional standard were to emerge, it would never be identical to any specific
variety because all the interconnected varieties would, in varying degrees, have
contributed to it.
This relativistic view of the nature and desirability of standards — reviewed
in some detail in Davies (1999) — flows directly from a long tradition of
English laissez-faire in matters of language and of a history of half-hearted
attempts at controlling the language from the center. Despite well-articulated
arguments, plans to set up a language academy on the Italian or French model
never succeeded in attracting much more than the attention of polemicists such
as Jonathan Swift. In mid-18th-century England, no less an authority than
Samuel Johnson willingly recognized in the preface to his dictionary that
“exuberance of signification” in language could never be fully chronicled, let
alone controlled, and conceded that he saw no point in supporting efforts by his
own social class to control — or, as they saw it, uplift — the linguistic practices
of the “laborious and mercantile part of the people.” In a sense, the more
successful attempts at standardization affected the outer reaches of the growing
English-speaking world. This is evident, for example, in the grammars and
dictionaries that set out to codify a Scottish standard for lexis and syntax based
on the speech of local clerics, academics, and lawyers (Jones 1993) and in
Webster’s largely successful crusade for spelling reform in America motivated
at least as much by nationalistic fervor as by purposes of linguistic rationalization.
Resistance to supranational standardization is also a factor of the peculiar
geographic distribution of English born of the growing geopolitical reach of
<LINK "bru-r32">
"bru-r10">
speakers of the language. What started as limited maritime trade and the
westward migration of a few thousand people from a small island off Western
Europe resulted in a language now distributed among a number of power
centers, each with its own sociocultural characteristics and its own set of
regional and global interconnections. While the present-day dominance of the
North American variety is undeniable, history as well as a literary canon that
continues to command worldwide attention is likely to give the British variety
lasting influence. Despite its narrower range, the Australian variety is unlikely
to be challenged within its own regional sphere of influence. Much the same is
true of India because of its large population, the power it wields regionally, and
the fact that the variety serves to tie the component parts of India to each other
and the whole to neighbors that share a common colonial history. As a result,
it is now unimaginable that one of these varieties — even the American variety
— would come to command so much more sociolinguistic clout than any of the
others that it could — deliberately or accidentally — exert sufficient gravita-
tional force as to reduce related varieties to minor variants of itself. This
division into several relatively equal, or at least culturally autonomous and self-
confident poles, and the resulting multi-core distribution of modern English are
likely to continue making the language resistant to standardization.
Among the hypothetical challengers to English as a global language re-
viewed here, the picture is somewhat more complex. Considered independently
of other factors, the wide distribution of Arabic across national borders should
in principle make that language at least as impervious to standardization as
English. This should ensure that no single variety dominates and that the
language is permitted to adapt to local environments while maintaining
sufficient unity to function as a language of international communication.
However, this potential for adaptation is reduced by the close association of the
language with a religious message that does not lend itself readily to relativistic
interpretations. As a result, the potential for Arabic to adapt to local settings,
especially in its written — hence most easily standardized — form and to take
on a global role must be regarded as limited, even if other geopolitical factors
were favorable.
For its part, Spanish has a long and well-documented history of attempts at
standardization through the publication of grammars and dictionaries that
often aimed to resist the alleged superiority of French norms (Cuevas 1999).
Today, attitudes to the international role of Spanish and to internal variation
are said by Lombraña (2000) to be more utilitarian and relaxed than French
ones, no doubt owing to the early weakening of Spanish imperial power and the
<LINK "bru-r23">
"bru-r45">
lenged, this process of linguistic and cultural import will mislead the poorer
importing nations into relying on a value system with little local relevance and
serving only the covert interests of the wealthier exporting nations.
In practice, however, it is important to recall that the import of values and
of the languages that encode them can just as often be the consequence — as
opposed to the root cause — of major changes in local mindsets and develop-
mental objectives. For example, when the Chinese leadership decided in 1986
that the market route to economic development was likely to yield greater
rewards than the earlier centrally-planned experiment, it committed itself —
unwittingly, no doubt — to importing notions that had not been part of earlier
arrangements governing business or public administration. Among these are
corporate governance, conflict of interest, transparency, and disclosure, all of
which are essential to the successful conduct of large-scale business, especially
in a globalized context. Similarly, change in the political mindset undergone by
societies such as Taiwan or South Korea in the 1990s brought with it a discourse
of public debate and notions of challenge to a hierarchical order that could only
be described initially as foreign. Especially after translation into the local
vernacular and much conceptual tweaking to suit local conditions, the language
that now encodes these notions is clearly not value-free. The test of English or
any other international conveyor of modernizing and liberating notions is not
that it introduces values regarded as foreign and therefore either good or bad in
some abstract sense. It is whether these values help to bring about beneficial
change in the form of generalized wealth creation benefiting most in a less
hierarchical society. Interest in these values is no pro-western fad. They appeal
because they are seen as helping to understand the relative economic success of
western societies, where they were first given a chance. For as long as these
values are regarded as preferable to traditional, home-grown ones and for as
long as they are strongly associated with English-speaking cultures, any chal-
lenge to English as a vehicle for these values is unlikely to succeed.
What, then, of the possible competitors to this dominant position for
English with regard to modernizing and liberating values? According to
promoters of Esperanto such as Tonkin (2000), one of its principal virtues is
precisely that it is a powerful symbol of the human linguistic heritage and hence
of universal human values. In this sense, it is argued, Esperanto can become a
key vehicle for the promotion of ideologies and practices that unite rather than
divide humans in ways that languages associated with nation states cannot hope
to do because of the baggage of confrontational relations that they all carry in
varying degrees. In the long term, however, it is inconceivable that a spreading
<LINK "bru-r22">
are busy trying to catch up economically within the dominant North American
paradigm, Spanish is not likely — on grounds of ideological appeal at least —
to confirm Lombraña’s claim that it is poised to gain in worldwide influence.
Much like Spanish, albeit operating over a smaller area, German is a largely
localized language of wider communication. Like Spanish-speaking countries
also, Germany operates within the western ideological paradigm and its
language does not appear to offer significant intellectual alternatives to seekers
of new approaches to intellectual or societal problems. Moreover, and unlike
that of Spanish, the German linguistic hinterland is small and does not appear
to be growing. As Coulmas (1990) shows, the prestige of German rose sharply
in the eighteenth century as the language became associated with the moderniz-
ing values of the Enlightenment before going into a steady decline throughout
the 20th century, owing in large part to the negative connotations of the
country’s expansionist adventures. A decade ago, Coulmas noted that even
German businesses and scientists were disloyal to their native language and
more likely to abandon it if an alternative presented itself, usually in the form
of English. Ammon (1995) also concedes that German has now lost its intellec-
tual status as the international language of science. Hilgendorf (1996) confirms
that the German scientific community is increasingly publishing first or solely
in English, if necessary coining any required new terminology in English, not
German. Hilgendorf also lists a number of motivations for the growing appeal
of English to German speakers, including perceptions of precision and brevity
as well as modernization. Recent years have witnessed growing economic and
political ties between Germany and Central and Eastern Europe, a sharp boost
given to German self-confidence by reunification, and a new willingness among
German politicians to exhibit greater assertiveness. Yet, any supranational role
for German will be limited geographically, and ideological appeal is not likely to
be a significant contributor to that role.
Turning to Chinese, Goh (1999) is surely right when he asserts that the
likely emergence of China as an economic and military superpower will lead to
the growth of Chinese as a language of international communication in the
coming decades. Already a lingua franca among the educated and business-
oriented Chinese diaspora, Chinese can only expand as more individuals,
businesses, and governmental organizations come into contact with China
through increased trade. However, it is difficult at present to see what the
ideological appeal of Chinese might be. It is conceivable that in the distant
future, a newly wealthy and self-confident China might be in a position to
appropriate the modernizing values it is currently learning to its advantage and
<LINK "bru-r16">
"bru-r28">
"bru-r20">
"bru-r43">
substantial spin. Even more problematic is the fact that it is not clear why
French-led cultural universalism should be preferable to the American-led
alternative or why resistance to cultural and linguistic imperialism should be
conducted in French rather than in the many local vernaculars under alleged
threat. Given this ambiguity, the promotion of French as the language of an
“anti-destiny” is unlikely to win the hearts of many recruits, on ideological
grounds at least.
I have argued that geopolitical factors such as economic or military power are
not sufficient to explain, let alone predict, the relative strength of languages of
supranational communication. Clearly, critical mass is crucial and goes a long
way toward making the current position of English as a language of global
communication seemingly unassailable. It is also true that if this position is to
be challenged in the twenty-first century, the most likely source of that chal-
lenge is likely to result — despite periodic bursts of Islamic assertiveness —
from the rise of China as a world power in economic, military, and political
terms. However, any challenge to the dominance of English as a global language
will need to be based on more than a favorable set of geopolitical circumstances.
In particular, I have suggested that complex inflectional morphology, tonal
phonology, and a primarily logographic script would limit the chances of a
challenging language to expand its global role. A global language is bound
sooner or later to be used in large part by speakers who know it as a second
language only and use it for a variety of purposes in a range of settings. As it is
pulled in different directions depending on degree of exposure to local languag-
es and cultures in each setting, its linguistic characteristics are likely to be
steered in the direction of greater inflectional simplification under pressure
from instrumentally motivated users. This implies that to assume a global role,
a language must be amenable to unplanned, user-driven adaptation, a process
unlikely to succeed in settings with a strong tradition of centralized language
planning and control, especially if power over language form and language use
is concentrated in a single dominant culture.
To sum up, while increased geopolitical power is a factor that may well
favor China — and hence Chinese — in the not too distant future, the critical
mass accrued to English may well prevent radical change in current power
relations between world languages. In addition, any hypothetical challenge to
<DEST "bru-r6">
"bru-r1">
"bru-r2">
"bru-r3">
"bru-r4">
"bru-r5">
References
Ager, Dennis. 1999. Identity, Insecurity and Image: France and Language. Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Ammon, Ulrich. 1995. To what extent is German an international language? In Patrick
Stevenson (ed.), The German Language and the Real World: Sociolinguistic, Cultural, and
Pragmatic Perspectives on Contemporary German. New York: Oxford University Press,
25–54.
Aziz, Ahmed. 1996. Urdu education in South Africa. Language Matters 27: 244–252.
Bamgbose, Ayo. 1998. Torn between the norms: Innovations in world Englishes. World
Englishes 17: 1–14.
Bex, Tony. 1993. Standards of English in Europe. Multilingua 12: 249–264.
Chan, Lily, and Terezinha Nunes. 1998. Children’s understanding of the formal and
functional characteristics of written Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics 18: 115–131.
<DEST "bru-r26">
"bru-r7">
"bru-r8">
"bru-r9">
"bru-r10">
"bru-r11">
"bru-r12">
"bru-r13">
"bru-r14">
"bru-r15">
"bru-r16">
"bru-r17">
"bru-r18">
"bru-r19">
"bru-r20">
"bru-r21">
"bru-r22">
"bru-r23">
"bru-r24">
"bru-r25">
Chen, Ping. 1994. Four projected functions of new writing systems for Chinese. Anthropolog-
ical Linguistics 36: 366–381.
Chen, Ping. 1996. Toward a phonographic writing system of Chinese: A case study in writing
reform. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 122: 1–46.
Chisanga, T., and Nkonko M. Kamwangamalu. 1997. Owning the other tongue: The
English language in southern Africa. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Develop-
ment 18: 89–99.
Coulmas, Florian. 1990. The status of German: Some suggestions for future research.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 83: 171–185.
Crystal, David. 1997. English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cuevas, Manuel B. 1999. L’universalité de la langue française dans les grammaires de français
pour les espagnols et dans les dictionnaires bilingues antérieurs à 1815. Historiographica
Linguística 26: 37–71.
Davies, Allan. 1999. Standard English: Discordant voices. World Englishes 18: 171–186.
DeFrancis, John. 1989. Visible Speech: The Diverse Oneness of Writing Systems. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press.
de Keyser, Robert M. 2000. The robustness of critical period effects in second language
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22: 499–533.
de Swaan, Abram. 1998. A political sociology of the world language system (1): The dynam-
ics of language spread. Language Problems & Language Planning 22: 63–75.
Feng, Zhiwei, and Binyong Yin. 2000. The Chinese diagraphia problem in the information
age. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 30: 229–234.
Gambier, Yves. 1993. The ideology of English: French perceptions of English as a world
language. Multilingua 12: 417–421.
Goh, Yeng S. 1999. Challenges to the rise of global Mandarin. Journal of the Chinese Language
Teachers Association 34: 41–48.
Grabe, William. 1988. English, information access, and technology transfer: A rationale for
English as an international language. World Englishes 7: 63–72.
Graddol, David. 1997. The Future of English?: A Guide to Forecasting the Popularity of the
English Language in the 21st Century. London: British Council.
Heller, Monica. 1999. Alternative ideologies of la Francophonie. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3:
336–359.
Hilgendorf, Suzanne K. 1996. The impact of English in Germany. English Today 12: 3–14.
Hirataka, Fumiya. 1992. Language spread policy of Japan. International Journal of the
Sociology of Language 95: 93–108.
Hutchinson, Gavin. 1999. Opposition to the German spelling reform. Journal of the Simpli-
fied Spelling Society 2: 21–23.
Hyde, Martin. 1998. Intercultural competence in English language education. Modern
English Teacher 7: 7–11.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Jones, Charles. 1993. Scottish standard English in the late eighteenth century. Transactions of
the Philological Society 92: 95–131.
<LINK "bru-r43">
<DEST "bru-r27">
"bru-r28">
"bru-r29">
"bru-r30">
"bru-r31">
"bru-r32">
"bru-r33">
"bru-r34">
"bru-r35">
"bru-r36">
"bru-r37">
"bru-r38">
"bru-r39">
"bru-r40">
"bru-r41">
"bru-r42">
"bru-r43">
"bru-r44">
"bru-r45">
"bru-r46">
Kanyoro, Musimbi R. A. 1991. The politics of the English language in Kenya and Tanzania.
In Jenny Cheshire (ed.), English Around the World: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 402–419.
Kibbee, Douglas A. 1993. World French takes on world English: Competing visions of
national and international languages. World Englishes 12: 209–221.
Laitin, David D. 1996. Language planning in the former Soviet Union: The case of Estonia.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 118: 43–61.
Liow, Susan J. R., and Kenneth L. Poon. 1998. Phonological awareness in multilingual
Chinese children. Applied Psycholinguistics 19: 339–362.
Lodge, R. Anthony. 1991. Authority, prescriptivism, and the French standard language.
Journal of French Language Studies 1: 93–111.
Lombraña, Julián V. 2000. El español en los proyectos de lengua universal. Historiographia
Linguística 27: 59–77.
McArthur, Douglas. 1996. Towards designer English. English Language Teaching Journal 50:
344–346.
McArthur, Tom. 1999. English in the world, in Africa, and in South Africa. English Today 15:
11–16.
Munro, Vicki R. 1996. International graduate students and the spread of English. World
Englishes 15: 337–345.
Nadkarni, Mangesh V. 1992. On liberating English to be a world language. World Englishes
11: 331–339.
Navarro, Fernando A. 1997. Which is the world’s most important language? Application of
an objective method of assessment to the twelve main world languages. Lebende
Sprachen 42: 5–10.
Ozolins, Uldis. 1994. Upwardly mobile languages: The politics of language in the Baltic
states. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development 15: 161–169.
Pakir, Anne. 1999. Connecting with English in the context of internationalisation. TESOL
Quarterly 33: 103–113.
Pêcheur, Jacques. 1998. Scénario pour le français, demain. Le Français dans le Monde 300: 23–26.
Pennycook, Alastair. 1998. English and the Discourse of Colonialism. New York: Routledge.
Petzold, Ruth, and Margie Berns. 2000. Catching up with Europe: Speakers and functions of
English in Hungary. World Englishes 19: 113–124.
Phillipson, Robert, and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas. 1999. Englishisation: One dimension of
globalisation. International Association of Applied Linguistics (AILA) Review 13: 19–36.
Prabhu, N. S. 1994. The mathetic function of English as a world language. Journal of English
and Foreign Languages 13/14: 53–66.
Safran, William. 1999. Politics and language in contemporary France: Facing supranational and
infranational challenges. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 137: 39–66.
Salmons, Joe. 1990. From tone to stress: Mechanisms and motivations. Proceedings of the
Berkeley Linguistic Society 16: 282–291.
Sánchez, Aquilino. 1992. Politica de difusión del español. International Journal of the
Sociology of Language 95: 51–69.
Schlyter, Birgit N. 1998. New language laws in Uzbekistan. Language Problems & Language
Planning 22: 143–181.
<DEST "bru-r53">
"bru-r47">
"bru-r48">
"bru-r49">
"bru-r50">
"bru-r51">
"bru-r52">
Schultz, Renate A., and Phillip Elliott. 2000. Learning Spanish as an older adult. Hispania 83:
107–119.
Swales, John M. 1993. The English language and its teachers: Thoughts past, present, and
future. English Language Teaching Journal 47: 283–291.
Tonkin, Humphrey. 2000. What kind of culture? What kind of peace? What kind of
language? Esperanto 93: 142–143.
Tse, John K. P. 2000. Language and a rising new identity in Taiwan. International Journal of
the Sociology and Language 143: 151–164.
Wang, Yue, Michelle M. Spence, Allard Jongman and Joan A. Sereno. 1999. Training
American listeners to perceive Mandarin tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 106: 3649–3658.
Wright, Sue. 1999. Kyrgyzstan: The political and linguistic context. Current Issues in
Language & Society 6: 85–91.
Yano, Yasukata. 2001. World Englishes in 2000 and beyond. World Englishes 20: 119–132.
Résumé
Resumo
Author’s address
Department of English Language & Literature
National University of Singapore
Singapore 117570
ellpb@nus.edu.sg