You are on page 1of 21

English in Diverse world contexts The Linguistic imperialism of Robert Phillipson

1. Linguistic Imperialism
1.1 The spread of English The stated aim of Phillipsons 1992 book Linguistic Imperialism was to set out how English became so dominant and why, and to examine the role ELT pedagogy had in contributing to it becoming the international language par excellence in which the fate of most of the worlds millions is decided. (Phillipson 1992 p.6) While many writers had tackled the question before no one had done so from the type of critical, socio-linguistic standpoint taken by Phillipson. Whereas for David Crystal, and other commentators, the rise of English is a largely neutral phenomenon, achieved by repeatedly finding itself at the right place at the right time (Crystal 1997, p.110) for Phillipson, the spread of English is no happy accident and his book is no dispassionate examination of the natural evolution of a language. According to Phillipson the English language has been, and continues to be, propelled by the deliberate manipulation of economic, political, intellectual and social forces in order to legitimate, effectuate and reproduce an unequal division of power and resources. (Phillipson 1992 p.47) and create a culture of what Phillipson calls, linguistic imperialism. For Phillipson the ELT industry and ELT pedagogy are not innocent bystanders in the rise of English language hegemony but are complicit in a neo-colonial agenda that he sees as driving English to its current position. He contends that the popular view of the spread of English as an incontrovertible boon is misplaced and that the discourse that currently ties learning English to progress and prosperity is in fact
Page 1

English in Diverse world contexts


scientifically fallacious (ibid p.8). While accepting that English is no longer imposed by force as it was in colonial times he is deeply suspicious of the popular view that the demand for English is governed by such benign forces as the state of the market (demand) and force of argument (rational planning in light of the facts). (ibid p.8) For Phillipson imperialist control need no longer come from the barrel of a gun and the progression from one type of imperialist control to another parallels the way power can be asserted by means of sticks, carrots and ideas (ibid p.53) For Phillipson the spread of English is still implicitly connected to the imperialist urges of colonial times and recent ELT policy and practice has been deliberately directed towards maintaining the domination of Western centre countries over those in the developing periphery. English serves to consolidate the interests of the powerful globally and locally and to maintain an imbalanced exploitative world order, to disenfranchise speakers of other languages. (2008 p.6) Far from the ideas of some commentators that the global spread of English presents us with unprecedented ideas for mutual understanding (Crystal p.266) or that the world needs a global language and English is the best candidate (Quirk, 1990 p.105) for Phillipson the tension between English as an invasive, imperialist language and the promises that it holds out is not straightforward. and arguments in favour of expanding the use of English must be weighed against concern about educational and social inequality deriving from continued use of English. (2008 p.10) The question then is whether English will continue to spread as a second language the world over as a benevolent bonus or creeping cancer of modernity (ibid p.11) For Phillipson the answer is clear.

Page 2

English in Diverse world contexts


1.2 A definition of Linguistic Imperialism According to Phillipson, linguistic imperialism refers to a particular theory for analysing relations between dominant and dominated cultures and specifically the way English language learning has been promoted. (ibid p.15) For Phillipson language is one of many structures by which communities can be categorised and discriminated against, similar to gender, age and race, and while language does not in itself effect inequality it is a construct exploited by politico-economic structures to carry out their agenda of dominance. (Canagarajah, p.41) At the centre of Phillipsons argument is the concept of linguicism first defined by Tove Skutnabb-Kangas as a form of linguistically argued racism (SkutnabbKangas, 1988 p.13) Phillipson himself defines linguicism 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. (1992 p.47). A practical example of linguicism given by Phillipson would be the allocation of resources or materials to one rather than another language or when a priority is given to one language for teacher training, curriculum development or school timetabling. According to Phillipson linguicism refers exclusively to ideologies and structures where language is the means for effecting or maintaining an unequal allocation of power and resources. (ibid, p.55) Linguistic imperialism is a sub-form of linguicism, becoming manifest when the dominance of English is asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages. (ibid p.47) Accordingly Phillipson sees the English language in and
Page 3

English in Diverse world contexts


of itself as neutral but its exploitation by colonial and neo-colonial powers to exert and perpetuate their hegemony ultimately makes it culpable by association. Phillipson follows Galtungs theory of cultural imperialism dividing the world into a centre, core English speaking countries, and its peripheries where English is either a second or international link language (1992, p.17). Phillipson argues that this relationship is essentially one of structural and systemic inequality, in which the political and economic hegemony of Western Anglophone powers is established or maintained over scores of developing nations. (Kachru et al The handbook of world Englishes, p.257). 1.3 The role of English language teaching For Phillipson the ELT establishment, and certain institutions in particular1, play a clear role in supporting linguistic imperialism and he believes: there is a very strong case for claiming that ELT and the intellectual tradition behind it are neo-colonialist. (1992 p.72) He sees ELT as culpable for propagating and perpetuating a number of pedagogic tenets that have been promoted not, as is commonly thought because they are best practice, but in order to maintain the pre-eminent position of English over other languages and to safeguard the interests of the centre nations. These fallacies, as they are referred to by Phillipson are:

The monolingual fallacy: that English is best taught without reference to the learners native language

The native speaker fallacy: that the best teacher is a speaker from one of the centre countries

Particular opprobrium is reserved for the British Council

Page 4

English in Diverse world contexts


The early start fallacy: that the earlier a language is learnt the better it is mastered The maximum exposure fallacy: the more English one comes into contact with the better it is learnt The subtractive fallacy: the less a student speaks other languages the better their English will become These fallacies are a part of what Phillipson terms the professionalism and anglocentricity of ELT, which he sees as legitimating methods, techniques and procedures which are in the interests of the centre nations but which may be neither appropriate for, nor in the interest of the periphery. According to Phillipson the ELT industry is at fault for believing that the accepted methods, techniques and procedures of current thinking are enough to understand the complexities of language learning and for failing to critically analyse certain unsound foundations that underpin it. For Phillipson ELT professionalism excludes broader societal issues, the prerequisites and consequences of ELT activity, from its professional purview. (ibid) and represents a mechanism for exerting control over centre countries vested interests. By promoting these myths ELT helps to legitimate the dominance of English by rationalising activities and beliefs which contribute to the structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages. (ibid.) This rationalising of beliefs raises a serious concern with Phillipsons argument since it leads very quickly to the conclusion that it is impossible for any outer or developing circle writer to actually challenge his assertion that the spread of English is inherently pernicious.

Page 5

English in Diverse world contexts


1.4 Hegemony While many would be happy to accept Joseph Bisongs claim that those in the Periphery who opt for education in English do so for pragmatic reasons to do with maximising their chances of success in a multilingual and multicultural society (Bisong 1995 p.126) for Phillipson arguments of this kind are simply delusory. The belief that learning English represents a free choice in periphery countries, driven by market demand, is in fact merely another demonstration of the hegemonic nature of the language and further proof of the neo-imperialist nature of English language dominance. While he accepts that arguments for the neutral or non-political nature of English language teaching may seem intuitively commonsensical this, he believes, is only in the Gramscian sense of being based on beliefs which reflect the dominant ideology. Hegemonic ideas tend to be internalized by the dominated, even though they are not objectively in their interest. (ibid. p.8) Such a stance, according to Bisong, is simply patronising and carries the implication that users of [periphery languages] do not know what is in their interest. (Bisong p.131) If linguistic imperialism is to be sufficient to explain the global spread of English, rather than simply a contributing factor in it, then Phillipson relies heavily on the claim that the normalisation and acceptance of English are actually a reflection of its current hegemony. Phillipson refers to Raymond Williams definition of hegemony as a set of meanings and values which as they are experienced as practices appear as reciprocally confirming. (1992 p.72) According to Phillipson English has attained a status whereby its assumed position is now taken for granted and its dominant role in the world is accepted as the natural state of affairs rather than a choice which reflects particular interests. (1992, p. 72) This acceptance for Phillipson is entirely
Page 6

English in Diverse world contexts


misplaced. As such Bisongs claim to a freedom of choice is, for Phillipson no such thing but rather a manifestation of the dangerous control English and ELT has taken over the minds of the dominated. The pre-eminence of English is legitimated as being a common sense social fact, thus concealing whose interests are being served by the dominant ideology and dominant professional practice. (1992 p.76) Maintaining such a stance seemingly leaves Phillipson in the unfortunate position of having to dismiss all claims to independent decision making on the part of English language learners and educators the world over. As a result he has often been accused of dismissing the role of periphery nations and even of peddling his own imperialist agenda. Whatever side he takes ultimately Phillipson can only adopt the perspective of the centre2 and, aside from accusations that he suffers from postcolonial guilt (see Rajagopalan 1999) it is difficult for him to counter the accusation that his arguments are inherently patronising. According to Brutt-Griffler, the conceptual lens of linguistic imperialism obscures the role of Africans, Asians and other peoples of the world as active agents in the process of creation of world English. (Brutt-Griffler p.107) and other commentators have argued that what may initially seem like a noble effort to save endangered languages and preserve linguistic diversity could, by another token, be seen as a subtle kind of manipulation, even imperialism, stemming from an arbitrary western intellectual agenda. (Hellinger 2005, p.25.) Certainly it is difficult for Phillipson to deny (and at times he seems uncomfortably aware) that his work by necessity stems from the same competitive,

Phillipson himself points out that There is a sense in which we are inescapably committed to the ethnocentricity of our own world view, however much insight and understanding we have of other cultures. (Phillipson, p.48.) It is not entirely clear though that Phillipson accepts that his view can only ever be that of an Oxford educated, white male from a former colonial power, with all the emotional and intellectual baggage that accompanies this.

Page 7

English in Diverse world contexts


progress oriented western paradigm that portrays indigenous people as weak, helpless, disadvantaged, exploited and indigenous (Hellinger, 2005 p.25)

2. Criticisms of Phillipson
2.1 The world is too complex Perhaps the most common criticism of Phillipsons work is that in trying to present a macroscopic treatment of the issue he ultimately presents a picture that is too remote, too simple and too theoretical to cover the complexities that underlie each individual context. Suresh Canagarajah takes issue with Phillipsons remoteness, claiming his perspective is too impersonal and global... missing the individual, the local, the particular. (Canagarajah, p.41) The result for Canagarajah is that there is little sense of the classroom with Phillipson failing to show how linguistic inequalities are effected, propagated, or played out in instructional contexts in the periphery. (ibid, p.42) In adopting such an impersonal perspective Phillipson is unable to consider how, in fact, English could be adopted to empower local communities and resist the influence of the centre. Adopting a more micro-societal perspective would, according to Canagarajah, not only allow Phillipson to take account of the lived culture and everyday experience of periphery communities [but would] also help qualify some of his claims. (ibid, p.42) Phillipsons failure to engage on this more detailed level leaves him open to the accusation that that his arguments show a failure to appreciate fully the complexities of the situation (Bisong, p.131). While these criticisms may have some justification they miss-place what Phillipson is trying to achieve, which as Phillipson clearly states at the beginning of Linguistic Imperialism is to situate ELT in a macro-societal theoretical perspective (Phillipson 1992 p.2) Indeed it is Phillipsons contention that his own analysis can probe
Page 8

English in Diverse world contexts


beyond individual experience and reflection to the processes and structures which are in operation at the international, national, group and personal levels. (My italics 1992 p.2)Accepting that Phillipson is trying to examine a global phenomenon it seems unreasonable to expect him to be too concerned with the everyday realities of English teaching and learning in each and every context. However, Canagarajahs criticisms do point to the sweeping way in which Phillipson considers all learners in periphery countries as essentially the same which, if he is to deny them their own voice, is a dangerous thing to do. 2.2 Colonial language policy and historical accuracy While several early commentators singled out smaller problems with Phillipsons work other writers have since questioned the validity and historical accuracy of Phillipsons underlying premise. Brutt-Griffler in World Englishes takes issue with whether linguistic imperialism is even a useful concept, contesting that: for linguistic imperialism to be a consistent explanatory framework, English must have developed as the product of a conscious policy developed and put into effect during the colonial epoch. (p.29) and this, she concludes did not exist. Brutt-Griffler points to the paucity of historical and empirical evidence provided by Phillipson and concludes that rather than a detailed empirical study of the question Phillipson tries to substantiate the requisites of a linguistic imperialist policy through repeated assertion of their presence (ibid. p.30) This impression was also had by a group of graduate students tackling the book who found that It seemed to us that the author was more concerned with imposing his views, which we were to accept on faith and not on the basis of evidence that would allow us to draw our own conclusions. (Berns et al p.275) After an extensive review of colonial language policy Brutt-Griffler
Page 9

English in Diverse world contexts


takes issue with Phillipson to the extent that she is prepared put forward the quite contrary idea that: rather than a unidirectional process carried out from an imperial centre, the spread of English involved a contested terrain in which English was not unilaterally imposed on passive subjects, but wrested from an unwilling imperial authority as part of the struggle by them against colonialism. (ibid. p.31) Other commentators have also noted that they can find no real evidence that the spread of English was related to a clear language policy. Bernard Spolsky points out that if any were to be found then it would be an outstanding example of the success of a language policy (Spolsky, 2004, p.80) but after some reflection concludes simply that there is no evidence for this claim (ibid, p.90). Others have questioned the historical accuracy of Phillipsons interpretation of events at the Makerere conference, an event to which Phillipson refers to as undoubtedly the most important landmark of the period of ELT expansion (Phillipson 1992, p.66) and from which he claims the five tenets/ fallacies of ELT, referred to earlier, came. In his review of linguistic imperialism Alan Davies wonders where Phillipson took the tenets from before concluding that they do not in fact represent a true reflection of the findings of the conference. That the 5 tenets / fallacies exist and have held sway in ELT for some time is not in question but, as Davies notes this type of factual inaccuracy points to Phillipsons determinism and perhaps suggests an attempt to institutionalise a more naturally occurring phenomenon. This has enabled opponents such as Davies (1994), Spolsky (2004) and others to feel able to dismiss Phillipsons work as a conspiracy theory.

2.3 Hyperbole and post-colonial guilt

Page 10

English in Diverse world contexts


Although not a direct criticism of his overall theory Phillipson has done little to encourage reasonable debate about his work and one reason it is sometimes dismissed is because of his occasionally forthright approach. His often hyperbolic language3 and tendency towards the extreme4 leave him open to the accusation that his work amounts to little more than a hotchpotch of political innuendo. (Crystal 1999 p.421) And the sometimes polemical nature of his writing means that, whatever truth there may be in the view that there is a correlation between linguistic and political hierarchy, his case may be blown by its overstatement (Crystal in Seidlhofer p.68)

In revisiting linguistic imperialism Margie Berns et al report that they spent considerable time sorting through their negative reactions trying to understand why even those among us most likely to be in sympathy with his position were offended by his tone and as a result distracted from the story he wanted to tell. (Berns et al 1998 p.274) In some ways this may seem unfortunate and irrelevant but Phillipsons apparent refusal to engage critically with subsequent debate is a significant shortcoming in his work and points to an underlying concern about his intentions. This is compounded by Phillipsons apparent awareness of the fact that some of the language of Linguistic Imperialism is not best suited to reasonable dialogue. On being asked why a later work was less confrontational in its outlook than linguistic Imperialism Phillipson responded: I feared that if started waving around labels like linguistic imperialism early on, then I would not enter into dialogue with the policy3

At various times he refers to English as a lingua Frankensteina, describing it as a killer language and accusing it of causing linguistic genocide.
4

Monolingualism is an illness, a disease which should be eradicated as soon as possible, because it is dangerous for world peace Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson 1989 p.469)

Page 11

English in Diverse world contexts


makers who might be frightened off by that sort of terminology. (Phillipson and Karmani 2005 p.248)

While such criticism may not impact directly on his central thesis it does point to a shortcoming in his work which is its overall entrenched negativity and lack of a suggested way forward. Phillipson is happy to denounce the spread of English (and its accompanying culture) in the strongest possible terms and yet is either not inclined or unable to suggest a way forward. While Phillipsons concerns are important, they still seem to leave us with the question of what to do pedagogically with English. (Pennycook, 1994, p.308)

3. English in a global age


3.1 Alternatives to Phillipson Since Linguistic Imperialism appeared several other writers, applied linguists and ELT practitioners have speculated on the future of English or have directly taken up the challenge put down by Phillipson as to how ELT can contribute constructively to greater linguistic and social equality (Phillipson, 1992, p.319) I shall now look briefly at the ideas of those who have tackled Phillipson most directly or who have done most to take forward the issues that arose his work. I refer to David Crystal first as, although he does not respond to Phillipsons challenge and is not particularly connected to the field of ELT, his position demonstrates the type of complacency about the role of English in the world that so infuriates Phillipson. 3.1 David Crystal: World Standard Spoken English

Page 12

English in Diverse world contexts


David Crystals position is perhaps the one furthest from that of Phillipson and I refer to it here as it is the position which most provokes his ire. In a slightly bad-tempered review of Crystals English as a global language Phillipson took Crystal to task for being both Eurocentric and triumphalist and for celebrating the rise of English while failing to recognise or take seriously the negative effects of its spread. While Phillipsons criticism is a little harsh, Crystal does indicate an ambivalence to the spread of English claiming, it is not possible to identify cause and effect ... we can only point to the emergence of a climate of largely unspoken opinion which had made English the natural choice for progress. (Crystal , 1997, p.75)

While Crystal acknowledges that there are or will be new Englishes it is not clear that he sees this, in the same way as Braj Kachru and other pluralists. For Crystal the current varieties of English are simply those native speaking countries and the most obvious example of a new English to Crystal is the difference between American and British dialects. Although Crystal recognises that international varieties of English express national identities and are a way of reducing the conflict between intelligibility and identity (Crystal, p.134) he does not see the proliferation of English as a politicised issue, somewhat trivially likening new Englishes to the dialects we recognise within our own country. (Crystal p.133)5 Ultimately Crystal expects to see the rise of what he calls World Standard Spoken English (WSSE), but it seems he thinks WSSE will be merely a form of American English that will sit comfortably next to a speakers native language. For Crystal it is a straightforward, win-win situation with no political or ideological baggage: The concept of WSSE does not replace a national dialect: it supplements it. [People] have a dialect in which they can continue
5

Admittedly Crystal is writing a popular book for the mass market.

Page 13

English in Diverse world contexts


to express their national identity, and they have a dialect in which can guarantee international intelligibility, when they need it. People do not need to give up their national linguistic identities just because they are going to an international meeting. (Crystal p.138-9) A polite view of the position would be that it sees English somehow remotely, as divorced from social context, representing an uncritical acceptance of English as part of a globalised world, and for some this would be sufficient criticism of the position. Crystals type of position sees the diffusion of English as natural and ultimately positive, stressing an agents choice in adopting English and pointing to its usefulness in a globalised world. 3.2 Braj Kachru vs Randolph Quirk: Institutionalised English(es) Although now something of an umbrella term world Englishes was a term originally coined by Bradj Kachru who classified certain types of English using the analogy of three concentric circles. Kachrus position and that of those who have followed his lead is characterised by an underlying philosophy that argues for pluricentralism and the recognition of multifarious Englishes. At its core is the belief that English now belongs to those who use it as their first language, and to those who use it as an additional language, whether in its standard form or in its localised forms. (Kachru and Smith 1985, p.210) In contrast to Phillipsons insistence that possession of English will always be a source of division between western neo-colonialists and the English language user on whom the language is imposed, Kachrus ideas emphasis the WE-ness, and not the dichotomy between us and them (the native and nonnative users). (Kachru 1992, p.2)

Page 14

English in Diverse world contexts


Kachrus insistence on recognition of the varieties of English was seen to prompt Randolph Quirk to write a celebrated paper denouncing what he saw as a deliberate but woefully misguided attempt to undermine the standard of English. In Language varieties and standard English Quirk argued that any suggestion that there could be anything other than native and non-native varieties of English would be extremely damaging and dismissed the idea out of hand, suggesting that the implications for attempting the institutionalisation of non-native varieties of any language are too obvious to mention. (Quirk, 1990 p.5). For Quirk the idea that there could be tolerance of linguistic pluralism was quite horrendous (ibid, p.8). Although only 20 years old Quirks paper already seems quaint and dated and perhaps typifies the type of linguistic chauvinism that Phillipson was so at pains to attack. Kachrus notion of Englishes is now commonly accepted and large volumes detailing and recording the varieties and differences of Englishes multiply by the year. 3.4 Alastair Pennycook: Critical pedagogies Pennycooks position takes on from where Phillipson left off, largely accepting most of Phillipsons assertions about the role of imperialism in language spread, but proposing a way forward based on critical pedagogies. Pennycook readily accepts that centre countries have promoted English to their own ends in order to protect and promote capitalist interests (Pennycook, 1994, p.22) and he also accepts that ELT has played a role in helping to legitimate the contemporary capitalist order. (1994, p.24) Where Pennycook differs from Phillipson is that he does not accept that English and ELT need be a tool of neo-colonialist empire and he would rather see critical English language educators using English to create a critical, transformative

Page 15

English in Diverse world contexts


and listening critical pedagogy that will create, what Pennycook calls counterdiscourses and insurgent knowledges (Pennycook, 1994, p.326). For Pennycook all education is essentially political and schools are cultural and political arenas where different cultural, ideological social forms are constantly in struggle. (Pennycook 1994, p.297) For Pennycook then the responsibility is that of the educator to help the learner critically engage with the language in order to write back against the colonial oppressor. For Pennycook it is essential that learners have access to a standard form on English in order that they have access to those forms of the language that are of particular significance in significant discourses. but they need to be aware that those forms represent only one set of particular possibilities (Pennycook, 1994, p.316) For Pennycook the learner should be encouraged to break the language in order to create new possibilities and find ways of using the language that meets their needs so that they can claim and negotiate a voice in English. (Pennycook, 1994. P.318) 3.4 Canagarajah: Appropriating discourse In line with his criticisms of Phillipson it is Canagarajahs aim to go beyond, what he refers to, as the stereotypical and simplistic stances of: English good, English bad, and instead re-position the debate within its real and lived social context in order to reflect on the diverse interests and motivations of individuals and take account of the creative processes of linguistic meditation, interaction, and fusion that take place in social life (Canagarajah, 1999, p.3) For Canagarajah language learning is ideological and as such can be used to engage and negotiate with agencies of power. In a similar vein to Kachru, Canagarajah sees English as becoming pluralized and varied with standard English being infused with diverse
Page 16

English in Diverse world contexts


alternate grammars and conventions in order to take ideological resistance into the very heart of English. (ibid p.175) For Canagarajah there should be a third way , an approach to teaching and learning that acknowledges the imperialist roots of ELT and neither rejects nor accepts it wholesale but which allows learners to appropriate the language in their own terms, according to their needs, values and aspirations. (Canagarajah, 1999 p.176) According to Canagarajah learners do not have to simply reproduce the language of the imperialist oppressor while accepting the values imported with it but can turn the language to their own needs thus making themselves insiders. By taking the language and making it their own language learners can reposition themselves to use English not as slaves, but as agents; to use English not mechanically and diffidently, but creatively and critically (ibid p.176)

4. Conclusion
Whatever ones opinion about Linguistic Imperialism it is now accepted that it opened up debate about the socio-linguistic and ethical impact of the spread of English. As Henry Widdowson and others have pointed out Phillipsons work initiated debate and even those who opposed his views felt obliged to look more critically into the issues it raised in such a provocative fashion. (Widdowson, 2005, p.362) Although similar concerns had been aired previously in the field of sociolinguistics Phillipson brought the discussion to a much broader audience and specifically that of ELT where his open anti-imperialist stance starkly uncovered English teaching agents complacency about the divisive effect of their policies and the alienation that colonial attitudes have engendered. (Holborrow, 1999, p.75-76)

Page 17

English in Diverse world contexts


Since 1992, debate about linguistic imperialism has been subsumed into a much broader discussion about global, world or international English(es), with heated discussion centring on issues of language rights and language ownership and the role and status of regional varieties alongside discussions about whose standards and norms should apply. Phillipson himself now focuses almost solely on issues of linguistic human rights, moving his focus from the former colonial empire to the EU and away from the broader debates being pursued by the likes of Pennycook and Canagarajah. It is tempting to suggest that Phillipsons main interest in English now is in attempting to minimise its use. Another outcome of Phillipsons work has been to raise awareness of the importance of the role and agency of speakers from the periphery in the development of English. Phillipsons insistence on the hegemony of English ultimately stripped them of agency and, in a sense it was a backlash against Phillipson by Canagarajah and others that led to a far greater acceptance of the role of non-native speakers and teachers in forming the future of English. In contemporary debates, speakers of World Englishes are no longer portrayed as helpless and passive victims of some international conspiracy of linguistic imperialism but active participants who use English for their own ends, and in the process actively contribute to the development and spread of World Englishes. (Hung, 2009, p.44) In the contemporary global world English users have access to English language resources from both the centre and the periphery and thus in its emerging role as a world language, English has no native speakers. (Rajagopalan, 2004 p.112) Phillipsons work, along with that of Pennycook, also helped create a greater awareness of the importance of positioning English within a much broader global
Page 18

English in Diverse world contexts


economic picture than had previously been the case. Rather than seeing it as a subject sealed off from the world, whose focus is on the best and most expedient way of acquiring a language; ELT practitioners can now look to develop a linguistics that treats human agency, contextuality, diversity, indeterminacy, and multimodality as the norm. (Canagarajah, 2007, p.98) Likewise scholars are moving away from Phillipsons conception of a single monolithic English that seeks to bully and dominate other languages considering it less as a discreet object even with its variations that can be taught only in its presence, and rather to deal with English as multilingual, as a language always in translation, as a language always under negotiation. (Pennycook, 2008)

Bibliography Brutt - Griffler, J. (2002) World English: AStudy of Its Development . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Canagarajah, S. (1999) Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching, Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress. Canagarajah, S. (1999b) On EFL teachers, awareness and agency. ELT Journal 53(3) 207-214.
Page 19

English in Diverse world contexts


Canagarajah, S. (2007) The ecology of global English, International Multilingual Research Journal, 1 (2): 89100. Crystal, D. (1997) English as a Global Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D (2000) Review. On Trying to be Crystal-Clear: a response to Phillipson, Applied Linguistics 21/3 415-423. Davies, A. (1996) Review article: Ironising the myth of linguicism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 17(6), 48596. Graddol, D. (1997) The Future of English? London: The British Council. Graddol, D. (2006) English Next: Why Global English May Mean the End of English as a Foreign Language, London: British Council. Holborrow, M. (1993) "Review Article: Linguistic Imperialism". ELT Journal 47/4 358-360. Holborrow, M. (1999) The politics of English: a Marxist view of language, Sage publications Kachru, B. (1986) The Alchemy of English. The Spread, Function and Models of Non-native Englishes. Oxford a.o.: Pergamon. Kachru, B. (1992) World Englishes: approaches, issues and resources, Language Teaching, 25: 114. Pennycook, A. (1994) The Cultural Politics of English as International Language, London: Longman. Pennycook, A. (2003) Beyond homogeny and heterogeny: English as a global and worldly language. In C. Mair (Ed) The Cultural Politics of English. Amsterdam: Rodopi Pennycook, A. (2008) English as a language always in translation, European Journal of English Studies, 12 (1):1347.

Page 20

English in Diverse world contexts


Pennycook, A. (2010) The future of Englishes: One many or none? In Handbook of world Englishes ed. Kirkpatrick, Routledge Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism . Oxford : Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R (1999a) "Linguistic Imperialism Re-Visited - or Reinvented. A Rejoinder to a Review Essay". International Journal of Applied Linguistics 9/1. 135-7. Phillipson, R. (1999b) Voice in global English: Unheard chords in Crystal loud and clear. Review of David Crystal, English as a Global Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Applied Linguistics 20/2: 265-276. Phillipson, R (2008) The linguistic imperialism of neoliberal empire, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 5 (1):143. Quirk, R. (1990) Language varieties and standard language English Today 6 ( 1 ): 3 10 . Rajagopalan, K (1999) "Of EFL Teachers, Conscience and Cowardice. " ELT Journal 53/3 200-206. Rajagopalan, K. (2004) The concept of World English and its implications for ELT, ELT Journal, 58 (2): 11117. Seidlhofer, B (2002) Habeas corpus and divide et impera: Global English and applied linguistics. In K Spelman Miller and P. Thompson (eds) Unity and Diversity in Language use. London: Continuum. Spolsky, B (2004) Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Widdowson, H (2005) Correspondence, ELTJ, 59 (4) p.362

Page 21