Linguistic Imperialism K - Michigan7 2016

Linguistic Imperialism Kritik --- FFRSV
2016
Notes --- MUST READ
This file is designed in a rather modular method --- put together the combination best for your round!
The most generic 1NC is put together for you!
Impact Level of this kritik ----

There’s a couple neolib cards and one imperialism card, but refer to the neolib kritik file for specific
arguments
Neolib Unsustainable
Neolib causes ____
AT: Neolib Good
Neoliberalism impact specific things
Refer to the spanos k for
Imperialism Impacts
Imperialism turns case stuff
Same for aff arguments for those^
Everything else you need is in this file!!

Thanks to Chirag Jain (Iowa City West High) and Vinny the Zhang (MBA) to make this file!
Any questions --- email --- chiragjain2000@hotmail.com OR vincent.zhang99@gmail.com
1NC
1NC Generic Link --- Diplomatic Engagement
The language of diplomacy and international institutions has transitioned --- the aff’s execution of
the plan through diplomatic means perpetuates the dominance of English and the destruction of the
non-natives to “noises” and results in linguicism and linguicide
Tsuda 10 --- Professor in the Doctoral Program in Modern Cultures and Public Policies of the Graduate School of Humanities
and Social Sciences at the University of Tsukuba in Japan, Graduate School of International Development @ Nagoya University
(“Speaking Against the Hegemony of English”, Yukio Tsuda, Against the Hegemony of English pp 248-268, 2010)//chiragjain
Six Problems of the Hegemony of English The Hegemony of English refers to the situation where English is so
dominant that inequality and discrimination take place in communication . As far as I have studied, there are at
least 6 problems of inequality and discrimination caused by the Hegemony of English. They are: (1)
Linguicism; (2) Linguicide; (3) Americanization of Culture; (4) Information Control; (5) Mind Control; (6)
English Divide. I shall discuss them one by one. Linguicism What is linguicism? The word has been coined by Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, a
Finnish linguist, following racism and sexism. Linguicism is defined as follows: “Linguicism refers to ideologies and
structures where language is the means for effecting or maintaining an unequal allocation of power and
resources” (Phillipson, 1992, p. 55). Looking back in history, we discover a great number of cases of linguicism.
Speakers of dialects were discriminated against because of the linguistic variety they spoke. In the process of
building a modern state, the government established a standard language which served as a linguistic norm and became
a basis of discriminating against the speakers of the nonstandard languages . English functions and is widely
recognized as a global standard language today. That very fact serves as an enormous power and becomes as a basis of
discrimination, because it gives the speakers of English an enormous power and control in communication .
The very fact that the use of English is taken for granted also gives an additional power to the English-speaking
countries and people. In most international conferences English is used as the only or one of the official
languages. For example, the International Whaling Committee adopts English as its only official language. The
non-English-speaking countries have to provide translations if they wish to use their own languages. In 1993 when the International Whaling
Committee was held in Kyoto, Japan, I had a chance to observe one of the meetings. Most delegates spoke in English except for France, China,
and Japan. I was surprised to find that when the delegates for these three countries spoke in their languages, the
audience did not even pay attention to the speakers. Some people chatted among themselves. They started
listening only when the translators provided the English translations . This example shows that the Hegemony of
English not only deprives the languages other than English of the chance to be used, but also marginalize
them as meaningless “noises.” In other words, the non-English-speaking people are not only deprived of their
language rights, but their human dignity is also violated as they are ignored. The Hegemony of English forces
the non-English-speaking people to learn and use English. However, the English spoken by the non-English-
speaking people is often labeled “Broken English ,” which is rather an unkind label to degrade the non-
English-speakers. In addition, a new label has been created and used recently. The new label is BSE (Ammon, 2003). BSE stands for Bad,
Simple English. The label ridicules and degrades the English spoken by nonnative speakers of English. Thus, the nonstandard English
becomes the target of discrimination. In international scientific journals, linguicism seems to be
prevalent as scholars of the non-English-speaking countries have difficulty getting their papers accepted
not necessarily because of the quality of their researches per se, but because of the quality of their Englis h. In
today’s international academic community, the system is already organized in such a way that benefits the scholars
who are native speakers of English, because English is now the language of sciences , and the ideas and
voices of the non-English-speaking scholars are often ignored unless they are very proficient in English.
Donald Macedo, a critical sociolinguist at the University of Massachusetts, and his associates present a very interesting case of linguicism, which
happened some years ago at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology. They describe it as follows: A
group of students
petitioned the administration not to hire professors who spoke English with a foreign accent , under the
pretext that they had difficulty understanding their lectures. By barring professors who spoke English with a foreign
accent, these students would have kept Albert Einstein from teaching in U.S. universities (Macedo, Dendrinos and
Gounari, 2003, p. 12) Thus, linguicism, or inequality and discrimination because of the dominance of English is
real. Non-English-speaking people are not only forced to learn and use English, but they are also discriminated against
because of the variety of English they use. Linguicide There is a prediction among some linguists that in several hundred
years from today, only one prestigious global language will prevail in the world . It will be English.
Linguicide refers to the killing of languages, especially weaker and smaller ones. The term linguicide derives the word, genocide
(the deliberate killing of a people because of their difference). Daniel Nettle and Susanne Romaine, British linguists, have provided a detailed
account of linguicide in their book Vanishing Voices (Nettle and Romaine, 2000). They
attribute linguicide to the global spread
of Western modernization which has destroyed the social environments of non-Western countries since the sixteenth century.
Western modernization has transformed traditional societies into the so-called modern societies across
the world that encourage the use of Western languages and degrade the indigenous languages. The creation
of the modern societies has led to the establishment of societies that are centered on Western languages and indigenous languages have been
marginalized. Nettle and Romaine (2000) report that there around 5000–6700 languages in the world today. The
number of languages
has decreased by 50% over the past five centuries , and the speed at which languages disappear is increasing, with, on
average, one language disappearing every two weeks. There have been a lot of voices raised and warnings given to the crisis of ecology,
especially, in reference to the problems of endangered species, or the disappearance of animals and plants. Linguistic
ecology is in
crisis too. This planet is filled with endangered languages which may disappear at any moment. Along with the disappearance of these
languages, related cultures, values, knowledge, philosophy, poetry, songs, memories, and linguistic souls also disappear. In a few hundred years
from today, there will be only one language left on earth – English.
1NC Generic Impact --- Neoliberalism
The imperialistic characteristic of English classifies diplomacy --- establishes American dominance
through language over those not speaking English --- perpetuates neoliberalism
Mind control The next problem I have discovered in the Hegemony of English is mind control, or the colonization
of the mind. Language is not just a tool or a medium. It represents a way of thinking, a mental structure . Learning
a language is not simply learning a tool . It affects people’s emotions. It influences their thoughts, beliefs,
and values. Learning to speak English often means learning to become and behave like Americans or British.
Through learning English many people in the world will possibly become mentally controlled by English . You become
supporters and admirers of English, its culture and countries through the experience of learning it, while at the same time you devalue your
own languages, cultures, and countries. The
Hegemony of English operates to reward the successful learners of
English: they will be gain high-paid jobs, achieve higher social statuses, and individual accomplishments .
They admire English and even become ardent advocates of the Hegemony of English. For example, Mauro E. Mujica, a successful immigrant
from Chile to the United States, is now a chairman of the US English, Inc, (US English, Inc, 2008) an organization advocating making English the
official language of the United States. At the same time, however, successfullearners of English tend to give up their own
languages. In California, the Hispanic people decided (Matsubara, 2002) to oppose bilingual education for their children in 1998, because
they wanted their children to be able to speak English. They seem to have chosen individual successes at the expense of maintaining their own
linguistic heritage, Spanish. The economic rewards provided by the Hegemony of English, thus, make people believe that it would be better to
choose English and throw away their own languages. The Hegemony of English controls people to the extent that they
choose English and give up their own languages . English divide The last problem of the Hegemony of English is English Divide.
English Divide takes place as a result of the formation of the English language based class system (see
Figure 15.1). As English is increasingly becoming a global standard language, ability in English will become a
very important basis of evaluation. There will be a great divide between English-speaking people and non-English-speaking people.
The Hegemony of English will create a global class society where native speakers of English who often
possess the highest English abilities will compose the ruling class . As native speakers of the prestigious global language
they monopolize the powers of communication and they can participate fully in global communication. Next come the speakers of
English as a second language. In the English-based class system, they constitute the middle class, and therefore they have
the second strongest powers of communication. These people are speakers of different varieties of English such as
Indian English, Singaporean English, and so on. Their participation in global communication is almost equal to that of native speakers of
English. Then come the speakers of English as a foreign language . They form the working class of the
English-based class system because they suffer from the labor of learning English for many years, often
for a lifetime. They do not have as much power of communication as native speakers or speakers of English as a second language. Their
participation in global communication is very much restricted and easily become discriminated against or treated unfairly. The majority of the
world’s population belongs to this class. At the bottom of the English language based class system exists what I call the silent class that has no
or little contact with English.In any country where there is a severe restriction upon overseas influence , especially
Western influence, there seems to be almost no contact with English. The people in such a country are the
silent class. Their power of global communication is almost none existent and their participation in global
communication will be very constrained. As the Hegemony of English develops and becomes stronger, we will find ourselves
living in the English language based class system which produces and reproduces English divide. In such a system, only the people
who can speak English well will prosper at the expense of those who cannot or do not speak English. In
fact, the English-speaking countries gain as much as about one third of the world’s GDP (Gross Domestic
Product), even though they represent only 8% of the total population of the world (Tsuda, 2006). In many non-
English-speaking countries in Europe and Asia, the English divide is happening: people get jobs and promotions if they demonstrate English
abilities. The
Hegemony of English thus causes the practice of inequality, always operating to reward
speakers of English and deprive the non-English-speaking people of the opportunities to participate in
global society.
Neoliberal empire justifies interventions, defunding of welfare, corporate
interventions, threat inflation, militarism, and ecological exploitation --- leads to
extinction
Pieterse 4 --- Jan Nederveen Pieterse is Mellichamp Professor of Global Studies and Sociology in the Global &
International Studies Program at the University of California, Santa Barbara . He specializes in globalization,
development studies and cultural studies. (“Globalization or Empire?”, 123-29, Jan Nederveen Pieterse)//chiragjain
The
Osmosis of Neoliberalism/Empire While neoliberalism and empire are far apart, what matters is not merely the contrast but also the osmosis of neoliberal globalization and imperialism, or how they fold into one another.
new policies unfold within a structured setting. The rapid succession from a neoliberal to an imperial
project yields a combination of American economic and political-military unilateralism and a novel
formation of neoliberal empire that twins practices of empire with those of neoliberalism . The core of
empire is the national security state and the military-industrial complex; neoliberalism is about business,
financial operations and marketing (including marketing neoliberalism itself). The IMF and World Bank continue business as usual, though with less salience and legitimacy than during the
Clinton years; so imperial policies come in addition to and not instead of the framework of neoliberal globalization. Neoliberal empire is a marriage of convenience with
neoliberalism indicated by inconsistent use of neoliberal policies , and an attempt to merge the America whose business is business with the America
whose business is war, at a time when business is not doing so well. The combination of business and coercion is not new; the Cold War also
combined military power and free enterprise. But the habitus of neoliberalism that has taken shape
during past decades is more pronounced than Cold War free market rhetoric, and economic deregulation since the Reagan years is
much more advanced. The neoliberal regime and the imperial turn have in common that they are doctrinaire and involve vast military spending and spin and marketing. Viewed from the United States, continuities between
neoliberal globalization and neoliberal empire include: State intervention in favour of corporations (fiscal policy,
finance, environment, labour, zoning) Free market ideology conceals corporate redistribution Conservative ideology of
authoritarian moralism Defunding social government (welfare reform, workfare) Funding punitive government (`three strikes and
out’, Patriot Act) Privatizing government functions (prison industry, security tasks) Threat inflation, massive defence contracts,
militarism Marketing and spin Internationally: structural adjustment and aggressive trade policies.
Merging neoliberalism and empire yields peculiar outcomes; here we first look at government. Government
One of the fundamental contradictions of neoliberal empire concerns the role of government . Neoliberal ideology
pleads for small government – though the US government is strong on law and order and regulates by Nederveen Pieterse – Neoliberal Empire 123 deregulating, which is difficult enough to balance. The neoliberal mindset may be
summed up in House Majority speaker Dick Armey’s favourite saying, ‘The market is rational; the government’s dumb.’ But empire requires big government; does this mean that the imperial turn puts dumb government in charge?
The accomplishments of neoliberalism – lean, cheap government – turned out to be liabilities in the war
on terror. It was the frailty of its public infrastructures that made the United States vulnerable in the
9/11 attacks, the anthrax scare and in terms of air traffic security. Big government now returns in the form of a huge homeland security department, military and intelligence expansion, new surveillance and
security systems, propaganda policies and government support for industries at risk. Establishing the homeland security department, the largest reorganization of the federal bureaucracy in half a century, was initially supposed to
.
be ‘budget neutral’. In line with neoliberal expectations, it is to be cheap, efficient and flexible (redeploying labour across departments without union restrictions), while matching imperial standards it is to be monumental
Cost-cutting exercises in homeland security are kept from the media. Also the Pentagon seeks expansion
while reorganizing its workforce along flexible lines (Shanker, 2003a). The tension between small-government
ideology and big-government reality manifests in economic policy . The Concord Coalition, a budget watchdog group, warns against ‘a schizophrenic
pursuit of small-government tax policies and big-government spending initiatives’.3 Neoliberal tax cuts and imperial expansion of military budgets are contradictory moves from an economic point of view (tax cuts and war don’t
The politics of privatization is that dismantling government means

mix), but not necessarily from a political standpoint. Privatization
dismantling accountability; the politics of neoliberalism treats politics as a business proposition, or

money politics, making it as unaccountable as business itself. The Bush II administration takes privatization to new heights. G.W. Bush, the only MBA to
occupy the Oval Office, is described as ‘the GOP’s CEO’ with the ‘mentality of a successful CEO’ (Dumbrell, 2002: 81; see also Begala, 2002). The CEO approach to governance involves reorganizing government itself, as in Silvio
Berlusconi’s CEO government in Italy. The campaign to roll back government is conducted by government, so bypassing government bureaucracies – in education, the environment, judicial process, fiscal policy, government
contracts, intelligence gathering, warfare and so on – comes naturally to this kind of administration. The ‘No Child Left Behind’ education policy sets standards that schools must meet to receive accreditation and funding so high
that failure rates are in the order of 20 percent (and may be as high as 70 percent); which means that students are no longer obligated to attend the schools in their district and 124 Theory, Culture & Society 21(3) can opt for
private schools, which will then receive government funding . In effect this introduces the controversial system of ‘school vouchers’ via the back door and
erodes the public education system. Logging and drilling for oil in nature reserves such as the Arctic National Wildlife
Reserve also occur by bypassing existing regulations and institutions. The nation’s shift to combat mode
in the wake of 9/11 facilitated the authoritarian concentration of power , silenced criticism and widened the umbrella
of ‘security’. Neoliberal practices of outsourcing (to focus on core business) now extend to security and war. Business conglomerates
built during the neoliberal regime cash in on empire, such as the Carlyle Group in defence contracts and Halliburton and Bechtel’s contracts for building US bases and the reconstruction of Iraq (Shorrock, 2002, 2003). Under
the security umbrella, government contracts for rebuilding Iraq were allocated without public
accountability, or accountability was outsourced – to the companies themselves (Baum, 2003). Bypassing the CIA, FBI and Defense Intelligence Agency, circles within the administration set up their own intelligence
units such as Team B and the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon. Passing on the blame for intelligence failures regarding 9/11 and Iraq to the agencies – which had just been bypassed – weakens the agencies and maximizes
executive privilege. The pervasive practice of cooking the books, Enron-style, now extends to policy in intelligence, security, the economy and the environment. Fudging data and deception
become standard operating procedure. The judicial process in relation to suspected terrorists is politicized by reference to security. Terrorism Information Awareness means unlimited
surveillance and limited accountability. Security voids the Freedom of Information Act. Security operations are increasingly outsourced to private military contractors such as DynCorp and MPRI, some of which are subsidiaries of
Fortune 500 firms. The global market in private military contracts is estimated at $100 billion. These services include training foreign troops, lowintensity conflict overseas, security for President Karzai in Afghanistan, airport
security and military recruitment. While these mercenary forces are paid for by American taxpayers, they don’t operate under military rules, are unaccountable and ‘allow the administration to carry out foreign policy goals in low-
level skirmishes around the globe’ without attracting media attention (Wayne, 2002; cf. Singer, 2003). This turns overseas conflict into another business proposition – just as prisons in the US have been privatized and turned into a
The accounts of terrorism for the public and for

‘prison-industrial complex’ (Dyer, 1999). Thus neoliberal empire extends profitable domestic practices overseas.
insiders differ markedly. The media duly present terrorism as the arch-enemy of ‘freedom’ and routinely
view it through the lens of Jihad and clash of civilizations (Abrahamanian, 2003). But the Rand Corporation, a Pentagon subcontractor, in testimony to
congressional intelligence committees presents an entirely different view. Here Bin Laden is a ‘terrorist CEO’: Nederveen Pieterse – Neoliberal Empire 125 . . . essentially having applied business administration and modern
management techniques learned both at university and in the family’s construction business to the running of a transnational terrorist organization. . . . Just as large multinational business conglomerates moved during the 1990s to
flatter, more linear, and network structures, bin Laden did the same with alQa’ida. . . . bin Laden has functioned like the president or CEO of a large multinational corporation: defining specific goals and aims, issuing orders and
One view is a Jihad

ensuring their implementation. And as a venture capitalist: soliciting ideas from below, encouraging creative approaches and ‘out of the box’ thinking . . . (Hoffman, 2002: 13)
stereotype while the other assimilates al-Qa’ida into the neoliberal mindset as a decentralized
transnational enterprise. The insider account of terrorism is business-like; in this view essentially two
business empires compete, using similar technique s. Meanwhile both perspectives ignore the opponent’s
politics. A vivid example of neoliberal empire was the plan for a futures market in political instability in
the Middle East. It was set up at a Pentagon web site on the principle of using market signals as a source of information on political trends; a mutually advantageous combination of online betting and intelligence
gathering, for isn’t the market the best source of information? Revoked within days under pressure of Congress, it illustrated the novel possibilities of neoliberal empire and war as business. Neoliberal empire is a tricky project.
Neo liberal globalization sought to establish legitimacy transnationally, via political-economic principles
(transparency, accountability, good governance); the Bush II administration shows decreasing transparency (empire requires secrecy), decreasing accountability (empire requires broad executive privilege) and decreasing good
Remote control via remote sensing satellites, unmanned drones

governance (civil liberties and due process impede the concentration of power).
and airborne surveillance is sufficient for containment operations (such as maintaining no-fly zones), but empire requires on-the-ground control
involving ground troops and special forces. Universal empire yields imperial overstretch, including military overstretch and the over-commitment of American troops. Forsaking UN authorization in Iraq means that the ‘coalition
forces’ consist mainly of GI boots; preparing for war and not for peace means that policing falls to coalition boots rather than UN peacekeepers; lasting insecurity and the withdrawal of UN and NGO personnel means that GIs must
also provide NGO services; and relying on hi-tech rapid deployment means that boots on the ground are thin. This has stretched American forces so much that deployment in Iraq outlasts military morale and National Guards and
Reserves are deployed overseas contrary to their expectations. In summer 2003, 21 of the Army’s 33 combat brigades were overseas, though normally only one brigade in three is deployed abroad while the other two retrain.
While the Pentagon contemplates expanding its troop size (a very costly proposition), it outsources security tasks to private 126 Theory, Culture & Society 21(3) military contractors. Law enforcement in Iraq was outsourced to
DynCorp International in a $50 million contract (Shanker, 2003b). But if privatization has trouble keeping electricity flowing in the United States (the 2003 power outage in the north-eastern US was essentially a consequence of
privatization), would it be more reliable in providing security and services in a war zone?
1NC Generic Alt
Vote neg to embrace an ecology of language -- challenging the concept of existing
reality as natural and inevitable is vital to open the possibility of diplomacy
(“The Hegemony of English and Strategies for Linguistic Pluralism: Proposing the Ecology of Language Paradigm”, Yukio Tsuda,
2008)//chiragjain
We have seen in the above discussions that th e Hegemony of English
3. The Ecology of Language as a Counter-Strategy to the Hegemony of English
creates and reproduces inequality, discrimination, colonization of the mind as well as Americanization,
transnationalization, and commercialization of our contemporary life . In order to solve these problems and realize equal and emancipatory
communication, the Ecology of Language Paradigm is very much needed as a theory of resisting the Hegemony of
English. The Ecology of Language Paradigm serves as a theory or perspective for promoting a more equal language and communication policy of the world. I have first talked about "The Ecology of Language Paradigm" in
1993 in Honolulu at the East-West Center's "Internationalization Forum." The two paradigms are as follows: "The Diffusion of English Paradigm," which is a dominant position not only in the Anglo-American world but also in the
former British colonies in Asia and Africa, is characterized by theoretical orientations such as capitalism, science and technology, modernization, monolingualism, ideological globalization and internationalization,
transnationalization, Americanization, and homogenization of the world culture, and linguistic, cultural, and media imperialism. In contrast, an alternative theorical orientation critical of the Diffusion of English Paradigm is what I
call the "Ecology of Language Paradigm." This paradigm is based on the theorical positions such as Human Rights Perspective,
equality in communication, multilingualism, maintenance of languages and cultures, protection of
national sovereignties, promotion of foreign language education (Tsuda,1994:58-59). Thus, the Diffusion of English or what I call "The Hegemony of
English Paradigm," is evidently a paradigm serving Western capitalism and civilization, while the " Ecology of Language Paradigm" is a paradigm critical of the
underlying philosophy of Western civilization which advances modernization. For example, the philosophy of
language in the "Hegemony of English Paradigm" is basically functionalism in that it sees language as a mere tool or instrument for
communication and fails to understand that it is an essential component of culture and identity. Thus, the "Hegemony of English Paradigm" disconnects
language from culture and the people using it. On the other hand, the "Ecology of Language Paradigm" assumes
that language is culture and is a source of personal identity . Moreover, the Ecology of Language believes that language is a precious environment which creates
us and our culture. Language is not a mere instrument, but it is an environment that influences and shapes us. Also, the "Ecology of Language Paradigm"
believes that language is people, and people are language. Therefore, inequality among languages means inequality among people. The death
of one language is the death of its speakers. Based on these views of language, the "Ecology of Language Paradigm" advocate the following: (1) The Right to Language (2)
Equality in Communication (3) Multilingualism and Multiculturalism By advocating these goals, the "Ecology of Language Paradigm" attempt to promote linguistic and cultural security for the non-English-speaking people. Let us
The right to language" primarily

look at each of them. 3.1. The Right to Language "The Ecology of Language Paradigm" regards "the right to language" as an essential right for every person . "
refers to an individual's right and freedom to use a language of his/her choice in any circumstances . It
therefore assumes an individual's right and freedom not to use a language that is not his/her choice but imposed upon him/her. The central concept of
"the right to language" resides in the use and recognition of an individual's "mother tongues." Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and Robert Phillipson, authors of Linguistic Human Rights, define "linguistic human rights" and "mother tongues"
We will provisionally regard linguistic human rights in relation to the mother tongue (s) as
as follows:
consisting of the right to identify with it/them , and to education and public services through the medium of it/them. Mother tongues are here
defined as "the language(s) one has learned first and identifies with ." In relation to other languages we will regard linguistic human rights as
consisting of the right to learn an official language in the country of residence, in its standard form (Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 1995:71). Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson emphasize two factors in their definition. One is
"identification with an individual's mother tongues." They believe that emotional attachment to one's mother tongues should be recognized as a part of "the right to language." Another factor emphasized by Skutnabb-Kangas and
Phillipson is social participation and integration. They recognize language as a channel that enables people to participate and integrate into the society. They recognize access to an official language as a part of linguistic human
rights. Therefore, we can provisionally say that "the right to language" involves an individual's right to use, learn,
and identify with a language of his/her choice including his/her mother tongues and official languages of
the country where they live. 3.2. Equality in Communication The prerequisite for equality in international communication is
equality among languages. If a speaker of languageC` and a speaker of languageCa communicates by speaking either one of the two languages, inequality in communication occurs. One of
the most influential factors that justify the use of English in international communication is the taken-
for-granted assumption that English should be used. The English-speaking people unconsciously believe English to be used by all people; namely, they unconsciously hold
linguistic imperialist consciousness, while the non-English-speaking people assume the use of English as the inevitable, indicating the
colonization of the mind on their part. Consciousness revolution is thus needed to alleviate imperialist consciousness as well as
colonization of the mind. One practical approach to establishing equality in international communication is " linguistic
localism," or the use of local languages by all the participants in communication. For example, when an international conference meets in France,
every participant will speak French, while if a conference is held in Japan, Japanese should be used. By practicing
"linguistic localism," we will be able to develop an intercultural awareness of sharing the burden of using
and learning foreign languages. In addition, the use of a third language, or what I call "Neutralingual
Communication" is another approach. When an American and a Chinese communicate in a third language such as French, Russian, or Malay, they will engage in linguistically equal
communication in comparison with communication in English which favors the American one-sidedly. Another strategy for promoting equality in communication is by equalizing linguistic
handicap of the participants in communication. For example, if each one of us speaks a foreign language or a
planned constructed language such as Esperanto , we will be able to establish equality in linguistic
handicap, which will lend to equality in communication. The primary reason for emphasizing equality in communication is that it will establish "symmetry" among people, enabling them to exchange ideas without much
constraint as German social theorist J.Habermas points out when he talks about "The Ideal Speech Situation": Pure intersubjectivity exists only when there is complete symmetry in the distribution of assertion and dispute,
revelation and concealment, prescription and conformity, among the partners of communication.(Habermas, 1970:371) Of all the symmetries, linguistic symmetry is the most
important for realizing equality in communication and the "Ideal Speech Situation." 3.3. Multilingualism and Multiculturalism
Multilingualism and multiculturalism can be also called "Linguistic and Cultural Pluralism," suggesting a
critical theoretical position against monolingualism and monoculturalism which aims at one language
and one cult. When we look back upon the history of modernization, we find that it was the process of building monolingual and monocultural societies, as the standard languages were developed for efficient
communication at the expense of innumerable local languages and dialects. As a result, linguistic hierarchization emerged, and it caused social stratification and inequality as well as discrimination. Globalization
as it is happening today is bringing about a new "Global Class Society" in which English and Anglo-American culture
dominate as a "Global Ruling Class." Linguistic and cultural pluralism is a counterstrategy against the force of monolingualism and monoculturalism. It opposes monolithic singularism
because diversity is the most important index of a truly democratic society. Pluralism is a philosophy of tolerance and conviviality which pursues a harmonious coexistence of different cultures, languages, and peoples. Pluralism
also pays most attention to the minorities, the dominated, and the disadvantaged, as it believes that these people should be given equal opportunities. Thus, linguistic and cultural pluralism is not only criticizing monolingualism and
monoculturalism, but it serves as an important indicator determining whether a certain society is truly democratic or not. The philosophy of pluralism is very necessary if we really wish to realize the democratization of international
communication which is dominated by one language, namely, English. Implications From the Ecology of Language Paradigm The ideas and goals advocated by the Ecology of Language should be incorporated into the theories and
practices of international communication, especially for the purpose of democratizing it. Let me summarize in the following some of the implications from the Ecology of Language for the betterment of international communication
The Ecology of Language provides a critical perspective for the present English-dominated
today. (1)
international communication, and raises consciousness about the issues such as the right to language and equality in communication. (2) The Ecology of Language serves the
non-English-speaking people by providing a theoretical base for building strategies to fight the
Hegemony of English and promote their cultural security and empowerment.In other words, it serves as a strategy for creating a balance of cultural and linguistic
power between English and other languages. (3) The Ecology of Language provides a theoretical foundation for the development of global
language policy, especially from the position of promoting multilingualism and multiculturalism. (4) The Ecology of Language serves the English-speaking people by
providing them with a critical awareness and knowledge with regard to the dominance of English , raising
consciousness about equality in communication, the right to language, and linguistic and cultural
pluralism. The Ecology of Language Paradigm is not without faults and weakness . Perhaps, linguistic and
cultural isolationism is one of the pitfalls that are likely to happen . If multilingualism, for example, is pursued to the extreme at the expense of
everything else, the speakers of minority languages might be confined in their languages and thus cannot communicate with the world outside of their linguistic and cultural boundary. In order to prevent linguistic and cultural
isolationism, we should recognize the "ecology-conscious" ideas such as "communitarian globalism" and "liberal localism" developed by M.Tehranian (Tehranian,1993) and integrate them into the Ecology of Language Paradigm.
I am
Conclusion Whenever I criticize the Hegemony of English, I am asked the same question: "I understand what you are talking about. But look, English is the lingua franca today. How can we communicate without it ?"
not denying the use and learning of English. Rather, what I am actually challenging is the very
knowledge or consciousness that makes it possible for people to ask such a question: the knowledge
that takes for granted the existing reality, accepts it as natural, inevitable, and even beneficial ; the
knowledge that refuses to envision the alternative. We need to examine the existing reality, and then try
to fill the gap between the status quo and the ideal by exploring the problems and providing solutions to them. In
conclusion, I would like to make three suggestions. The first one is directed to scholars of international and intercultural communication. That is, I suggest that the Hegemony of
English should become the subject of academic inquiry in the area of international and intercultural
communication, especially in the English-speaking countries. The second suggestion is directed to the English language teaching professionals. I suggest that the English
language education should incorporate the Ecology of Language Paradigm into the contents and
methods of teaching as well as teacher education. The last suggestion goes to all the speakers of English. I suggest that both native
speakers and non-native speakers of English should learn the philosophy of the Ecology of Language so
that they will become more sensitive to the ethical aspects of international communication .
Links
Link --- Arctic Council
The arctic council requires the use of English --- translators aren’t even provided ---
disregards those that don’t speak English
Arctic Council 15 --- The Arctic Council (“A GUIDE TO THE ARCTIC COUNCIL”, Arctic Council, October 2015,
http://gordonfoundation.ca/sites/default/files/publications/A%20Guide%20to%20the%20Arctic%20Council_20160303.pdf)//
chiragjain
English is the working language of the Council . Translation into Russian is provided as much as is possible by the Arctic
Council Secretariat and Indigenous Peoples’ Secretariat. Both the chair and host countries usually aim to provide a professional translator for the Senior Arctic
Official meetings they are hosting. This
is rarely possible at Working Group meetings. Speakers can speak in a
language other than English, but in such cases they are encouraged to arrange for an interpreter.
Link --- China
China’s neocolonization is successful --- English dominates the country but questioning
these structures through the alt can reverse this
Majhanovich 14 --- Dr. Suzanne Majhanovich. I am a Professor Emerita/Adjunct Research Professor at the Faculty of
Education, UWO (“Neo-liberalism, globalization, language policy and practice issues in the Asia-Pacific region”, Suzanne
Majhanovich, March 13, 2014, Taylor Francis Online database, 173-174)//chiragjain
In China, one sees a complex situation involving multiple dominant languages (Mandarin Chinese and English) wielding
overriding power and influence , and juxtaposed with some 55 ethnic groups of which some 53 have distinct local languages, enormous regional and urbanrural differentials in development and in language usage, and a tumultuous
history of multiple colonizations and local rule. The major ethnic minority groups are the Uygur, Tibetan, Zhuang, Mongolian, and Hui in five autonomous regions geographically distant from the centres of power in the east. In the first half of the twentieth century pluralistic policies did
accommodate native languages, but subsequent integrationist policies for promotion of Mandarin accorded minority languages little
recognition . From the late 1970s, pluralistic policies allowed return of native language use and recognition alongside Mandarin, but as Postiglione (1999) pointed out, major challenges to state schooling existed regarding education policies in relation to language and
ore recently Lee (2004, pp. 45–49) reported on the

religion, particularly in areas outside the main urban conglomerations and in remote rural provinces (see also Feng, 2009). M
significant regional disparities and inequities in China. but because of The case is distinctive, not only because of its geographic size and immense population,
the importance of English as the dominant language competing with Mandarin Chinese, both with huge
numbers of speakers within the country, and with English influences invading China as a counterpart to
the country’s drive to become a global economic power English has been a crucial element for China’s .
“Four Modernizations” programme which has focused on modernizing agriculture, industry, national
defence and science and technology, but also involved the promotion of English teaching throughout
the country The tests to
(Feng, 2009, p. 86). Since the late 1970s the government began developing College English Syllabi for Science and Technology (syllabus issued in 1985) and for Arts and Social Science students (syllabus issued in 1986).
measure students’ success in the respective English programmes were called CET 4 (College English Test, Band 4) for the Science and
Feng commented that these tests “have been nationally perceived

Technology students and CET 6 (College English Test, Band 6) for the Arts and Social Science students.
as the key to personal and institutional success since first administered nationwide in 1987 ” (Feng, 2009, p. 86). In the interim,
China has moved forward with its programme of English instruction, such that now pupils begin English in grade 3, receiving two hours of English per week progressing
Students are expected to successfully work through nine graduated

to four class hours per week from grades 5 through the end of secondary school in grade 12.
proficiency levels of English universities

by the end of senior secondary school. Feng (2009, p. 85) noted that “the overwhelming majority of over 226,000,000 students in primary and secondary schools and in
study English taught by a strong force of English teachers numbering 850,000 in the country ”. In tertiary education students
As noted above, there are regional and urban

take as much as 10% of total credits in English and are expected to complete English proficiency tests depending on their subject specialty (Feng, 2009, p. 90).
and rural disparities in China and this is evident in the provision of English instruction . The developed regions of Beijing, Shanghai and
the
Guangdong have access to superior infrastructure resources that will impact the language proficiency and teaching pedagogy. This contrasts with the situation of inland regions such as Gansu, Hubei, Hunan, Anhui and Sichuan (Feng, 2009, p. 92). Nevertheless,
government of China continues to promote policies to realize the goal of increasing the number of
citizens who can function at least to some degree in English.
Link --- Diplomatic Engagement
The language of diplomacy and international institutions has transitioned --- the aff’s execution of
the plan through diplomatic means perpetuates the dominance of English and the destruction of the
non-natives to “noises” and results in linguicism and linguicide
Six Problems of the Hegemony of English The Hegemony of English refers to the situation where English is so
dominant that inequality and discrimination take place in communication . As far as I have studied, there are at
least 6 problems of inequality and discrimination caused by the Hegemony of English. They are: (1)
Linguicism; (2) Linguicide; (3) Americanization of Culture; (4) Information Control; (5) Mind Control; (6)
English Divide. I shall discuss them one by one. Linguicism What is linguicism? The word has been coined by Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, a
Finnish linguist, following racism and sexism. Linguicism is defined as follows: “Linguicism refers to ideologies and
structures where language is the means for effecting or maintaining an unequal allocation of power and
resources” (Phillipson, 1992, p. 55). Looking back in history, we discover a great number of cases of linguicism.
Speakers of dialects were discriminated against because of the linguistic variety they spoke. In the process of
building a modern state, the government established a standard language which served as a linguistic norm and became
a basis of discriminating against the speakers of the nonstandard languages . English functions and is widely
recognized as a global standard language today. That very fact serves as an enormous power and becomes as a basis of
discrimination, because it gives the speakers of English an enormous power and control in communication .
The very fact that the use of English is taken for granted also gives an additional power to the English-speaking
countries and people. In most international conferences English is used as the only or one of the official
languages. For example, the International Whaling Committee adopts English as its only official language. The
non-English-speaking countries have to provide translations if they wish to use their own languages. In 1993 when the International Whaling
Committee was held in Kyoto, Japan, I had a chance to observe one of the meetings. Most delegates spoke in English except for France, China,
and Japan. I was surprised to find that when the delegates for these three countries spoke in their languages, the
audience did not even pay attention to the speakers. Some people chatted among themselves. They started
listening only when the translators provided the English translations . This example shows that the Hegemony of
English not only deprives the languages other than English of the chance to be used, but also marginalize
them as meaningless “noises.” In other words, the non-English-speaking people are not only deprived of their
language rights, but their human dignity is also violated as they are ignored. The Hegemony of English forces
the non-English-speaking people to learn and use English. However, the English spoken by the non-English-
speaking people is often labeled “Broken English ,” which is rather an unkind label to degrade the non-
English-speakers. In addition, a new label has been created and used recently. The new label is BSE (Ammon, 2003). BSE stands for Bad,
Simple English. The label ridicules and degrades the English spoken by nonnative speakers of English. Thus, the nonstandard English
becomes the target of discrimination. In international scientific journals, linguicism seems to be
prevalent as scholars of the non-English-speaking countries have difficulty getting their papers accepted
not necessarily because of the quality of their researches per se, but because of the quality of their Englis h. In
today’s international academic community, the system is already organized in such a way that benefits the scholars
who are native speakers of English, because English is now the language of sciences , and the ideas and
voices of the non-English-speaking scholars are often ignored unless they are very proficient in English.
Donald Macedo, a critical sociolinguist at the University of Massachusetts, and his associates present a very interesting case of linguicism, which
happened some years ago at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology. They describe it as follows: A
group of students
petitioned the administration not to hire professors who spoke English with a foreign accent , under the
pretext that they had difficulty understanding their lectures. By barring professors who spoke English with a foreign
accent, these students would have kept Albert Einstein from teaching in U.S. universities (Macedo, Dendrinos and
Gounari, 2003, p. 12) Thus, linguicism, or inequality and discrimination because of the dominance of English is
real. Non-English-speaking people are not only forced to learn and use English, but they are also discriminated against
because of the variety of English they use. Linguicide There is a prediction among some linguists that in several hundred
years from today, only one prestigious global language will prevail in the world . It will be English.
Linguicide refers to the killing of languages, especially weaker and smaller ones. The term linguicide derives the word, genocide
(the deliberate killing of a people because of their difference). Daniel Nettle and Susanne Romaine, British linguists, have provided a detailed
account of linguicide in their book Vanishing Voices (Nettle and Romaine, 2000). They
attribute linguicide to the global spread
of Western modernization which has destroyed the social environments of non-Western countries since the sixteenth century.
Western modernization has transformed traditional societies into the so-called modern societies across
the world that encourage the use of Western languages and degrade the indigenous languages. The creation
of the modern societies has led to the establishment of societies that are centered on Western languages and indigenous languages have been
marginalized. Nettle and Romaine (2000) report that there around 5000–6700 languages in the world today. The
number of languages
has decreased by 50% over the past five centuries , and the speed at which languages disappear is increasing, with, on
average, one language disappearing every two weeks. There have been a lot of voices raised and warnings given to the crisis of ecology,
especially, in reference to the problems of endangered species, or the disappearance of animals and plants. Linguistic
ecology is in
crisis too. This planet is filled with endangered languages which may disappear at any moment. Along with the disappearance of these
languages, related cultures, values, knowledge, philosophy, poetry, songs, memories, and linguistic souls also disappear. In a few hundred years
from today, there will be only one language left on earth – English. Living in the United States, many people often feel threatened by the rise of
Spanish. It has brought about a linguistic movement called the ‘Official English Movement’ in the 1980s, trying to officially adopt English as the
national language of the United States. English is not an officially national language by law in the United States. However, this movement
underestimates the enormous power and influence of English, especially in the international and global context. Many people of the world feel
threatened by English, as it dominates as the global language for business, science, media, tourism, politics, diplomacy, education, and so on. In
France and Brazil, the governments have passed a law that restricts the use of English in their countries. English dominates all the spheres of
human life in many countries in the world. The
majority of international organizations adopt English as a sole or
official language. As the global economy spreads in the world, there will be no choice for most people of
the world but to learn and use English . It is true that English is a lingua franca today, but because of that it
threatens other languages. It deprives us of the opportunity to use other languages. I suspect that the
Hegemony of English is one of many factors causing global language shift. Language shift is a phenomenon in which a
person changes his/her primary language. This happens to most immigrants. They gain a language of the host country, and they tend to lose
their own in order to survive. So language shift is accompanied by language loss. Economically and politically strong languages often replace the
weaker languages. Some people argue that English Hegemony is not responsible for global linguicide by pointing out that it is the dominant
languages in each country that cause the weaker languages to disappear. This is partially true. But, we are living in the age of globalization in
which we are greatly influenced not by the forces in each country, but the global forces that come across the national borders. It is very difficult
for any language to escape the enormous influence of English
which dominates as the global standard language . For
example, the dominant
languages such as French, Spanish, and Arabic have been losing power in
international communication in the face of the Hegemony of English . The percentage of speeches made in
the United Nations in English during 1992–1999 increased from 45% to 50%, while the percentages of speeches
made in French, Spanish, and Arabic all decreased : 19% to 13.8% for French, 12% to 10% for Spanish, and 10% to 9.5% for
Arabic (Calvet, 1998). Even the very strong languages are under the influence of Hegemony of English. English, being the language of
globalization and the greatest economic and political power, makes people gravitate and shift to it and lose their own languages. Louis-Jean
Calvet, a French linguist, names English a “hypercentral language” that makes many people around the world gravitate toward it. Calvet
provides what he calls the gravitation model of linguistic hierarchy in which most people gravitate toward English, the hypercentral language,
causing many people to shift to English (Calvet, 1998). Indeed, many people all around the world are now living in a social environment that
centers on English. In China, more than 500 million people are learning English. In
Korea, unless you have good scores in the
English test, you cannot have a job interview . In Japan, billions of money is spent every year on the learning of English. The
teaching of English for small children is becoming a big industry. It is possible that in these countries many people will shift to English in the
future. Not only in Asia, but throughout the world, the “Englishmania” or obsession with English is taking place . Why? It is
because the whole world has been organized in such a way that leaves no other choices but to choose English. Many people believe they have
chosen English on their own free will, but actually they are made to choose English and are not allowed to choose other languages. We are now
living in an age of “Speak English, or Perish.” This may result, sooner or later, in a global language shift in which people throw away their own
languages and shift to English. This would lead to global language loss and that is global linguicide.
Link --- Economic Engagement
Economic expansion in China perpetuates the dominance over the Periphery
through linguistic dominance
2008)//chiragjain
2. Dominance of English as Globalism While the dominance of English as neocolonialism occurs at the level of international interpersonal communication, the dominance of
English as globalism operates at the level of international mass communication which involves the issues
such as cultural and media imperialism , Americanization of global culture, McDonaldization and
Dallasization of the society, the unequal flow of international news and information, the dominance of
English in the Internet, and so on. In short, the dominance of English operates as a means of promoting
globalization. The dominance of English doubtlessly serves to facilitate globalization. Globalization , in turn,
assumes and encourages the use and dominance of English . In other words, the dominance of English is a reflection of the structure of global
relations. Australian applied linguist A.Pennycook, for example, points out the interrelationship between the dominance of English and the structure of global relations as follows: [I]ts
widespread use threatens other languages; it has become the language of power and prestige in many
countries, thus acting as a crucial gatekeeper to social and economic progress ; its use in particular domains, especially
professional, may exacerbate different power relationships and may render these domains more inaccessible to many people; its position in the world
gives it a role also as an international gatekeeper, regulating the international flow of people; it is closely linked to national and increasingly non-national forms of culture and knowledge that
it is also bound up with aspects of global relations, such as spread of capitalism,

are dominant in the world; and
development aid and the dominance particularly of North American media .(Pennycook, 1994, p.13) Thus addressing
the dominance of English is crucial to understanding the structure of global relations. According to sociologist Roland
Robertson, one of the most prominent scholars on "globalization," "globalization" as a concept refers to "the crystallization of the entire world as a single place" (Quoted in Arnason, 1990:220)
Globalization" in a more concrete

or "the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole" (Robertson, 1992:8). "
sense is taking place primarily in economic domains in which transnational corporations (TNCs) act as the
agent to conduct business and trade beyond the national borders. As a result, we live in a "global culture" in which our life is filled with products and information
imported from overseas. "Globalism," therefore, is the belief or a form of knowledge that "globalization" should happen. Globalism accepts "globalization" as natural. However, as I mentioned,
globalization, in fact, causes the Americanization of the world culture and McDonaldization of the
society: it is not a process carefully planned, but it is a mere affirmation of the structure of the unequal global relations in
which a few Center nations dominate over the Periphery nations. Thus, "globalism" justifies "globalization" as it is happening today.
"Globalism" prevents us from recognizing the three consequences of globalization including: (1)Anglo-Americanization, (2)Transnationalization and (3)Commercialization of our contemporary
life.
Link --- Education
The aff’s revitalization of educational systems and scientific research display the
dominance of English
Phillipson 8 --- Robert Phillipson is British, with degrees from the Universities of Cambridge and Leeds, and a doctorate from
the University of Amsterdam. Before emigrating to Denmark in 1973 he worked for the British Council in four countries. He
taught for many years at the University of Roskilde, Denmark, which has specialised in multi-disciplinary, student-centred
learning. He is currently a Research Professor at the Department of English of Copenhagen Business School. (“THE LINGUISTIC
IMPERIALISM OF NEOLIBERAL EMPIRE”, Robert Phillipson, March 4, 2008,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15427580701696886)//chiragjain
To understand the nature of symbolic power, it is therefore crucial to see that it presupposes a kind of active complicity on the part of those subjected to it. Dominated individuals are not
symbolic power requires, as a condition for its

passive bodies to which symbolic power is applied, as it were, like a scalpel to a corpse. Rather,
success, that those subjected to it believe in the legitimacy of power and the legitimacy of those who
wield it. (Thompson 1991, p. 23) Linguistic capital, its acquisition and investment, is a prime example of symbolic
power in use. The active complicity can be seen in the way continental European countries are increasingly, and willingly, using English in key societal
domains: in commerce (English as the corporate language, at least at senior management level), research publication (a trend towards publication
exclusively in English in the natural sciences, technology, medicine, and so forth), in higher education (English as a medium of instruction in some graduate-level courses,
especially those intended to attract ‘international’ students), in popular entertainment, and in EU affairs . Although there has been some analysis of whether
English represents a boon or a threat to national languages,23 the extent of the impact of English is unknown. In addition the terminology used to review the phenomenon is deceptive. There
is now much talk, at least in Sweden and Denmark, of ‘domain loss,’ which is a seemingly innocuous term, but like ‘language spread’ and ‘language death’ (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000, pp. 365–
What is under way is a much more actively driven process of linguistic

374), it appears to signify a natural, agent-less process.
capital accumulation by dispossession (to adapt terms from Harvey, 2005, where he is referring to the commercial world in its global pursuit of markets and
profit). Linguistic capital accumulation entails, as in commerce, some combination of internal motivation
and external pressure, push-and-pull factors. There are agents both among locals and in the Anglo American world that are only too keen to see a
consolidation of English, irrespective of the implications for other languages. In reality the amount of any domain loss, or rather domain dispossession, in European languages, is unknown.
The governments of both Sweden and Denmark are acting to ensure the maintenance of the role of the
national, unifying language as well as the promotion of proficiency in English, ideally to the level of
‘parallel competence.’ One Danish political party has suggested that English should be given the same position as Danish in public services, ostensibly as a way of tackling
globalization. The implications of this totally unrealistic suggestion have clearly not been thought through. Whether national measures of this kind, and policies in school and the media, will
prove adequate in the face of internationalization pressures that derive from globalization remains to be seen. The Bologna process seeks to integrate the research and higher education
systems of 45 European countries (with Australia and the United States as observers, since higher education is big business for them) into a single, unified ‘area.’ This ‘internationalization’ is in
theory committed by the original Bologna declaration of 1999 ‘within the framework of our institutional competences and taking full respect of the diversity of cultures, languages, national
education systems, and of University autonomy—to consolidate a European Higher Education Area at the latest by 2010.’ At the bi-annual ministerial meetings (most recently in Bergen in 2005
and London in 2007), the main focus has been on structural uniformity (a single BA, MA, and PhD system), on quality control (nationally and internationally), student mobility, recognition of
qualifications, and joint degrees— all of which are demanding tasks for most countries—and making European universities attractive enough to compete with the USA and Australia. What is
striking and shocking is that in the long communiqué from the Bergen meeting, there is not one word on bilingual degrees or multilingualism in higher education. On the contrary, the
impression is created that what internationalisation means is English-medium higher education (see Phillipson 2006 on whether English is a cuckoo in the European higher education nest of
languages). If this outcome emerges, it will strengthen the position of higher education in the Anglo-American world, including Ireland. It will also mean that the rhetoric of maintaining
Europe’s linguistic diversity and cultural heritage will remain empty words on paper. Prior to the 2007 London meeting, EU Commissioner Figel stated (press release IP/07/656): Bologna
reforms are important but Europe should now go beyond them, as universities should also modernise the content of their curricula, create virtual campuses and reform their governance. They
should also professionalize their management, diversify their funding and open up to new types of learners, businesses and society at large, in Europe and beyond. [: : : ] The Commission
In other words, universities should no longer be seen as a

supports the global strategy in concrete terms through its policies and programmes.
public good but should be run like businesses, should privatise, and let industry set the agenda. This is precisely
what the rightwing Danish government that has been in power since 2001 is implementing. The latest Bologna buzzwords are that degrees must be ‘certified’ in terms of the ‘employability’ of
graduates. ‘Accountability’ no longer refers to intellectual quality or truth seeking but means acceptability to corporate imperatives. Before European integration has taken on viable forms,
universities are being told to think and act globally—through the medium of English and course—rather
than remain narrowly national or European. This is insulting to universities , most of which have been internationally oriented for
decades, if not centuries. That the process of internalising linguistic hegemony progressively and insidiously is underway is clear from many sorts of data. Much of it is inevitably anecdotal, but
can be brought into the open, as in a review of David Crystal’s English as a global language, by Ranko Bugarski (1998, p. 90), a professor of English and linguistics at the University of Belgrade.
that ‘many readers may feel that he has underestimated some of the dangers’ as well as the
He comments
implications of ‘the advantage mother tongue speakers of a global language automatically have over
those who have to acquire it as an official or second language— in scientific research and publication, in
trade negotiations or political debate, and so on .’ This assertion confirms the impression of EU interpreters, who are convinced that people for whom
English is not their first language do themselves and their states less than justice when they ‘choose’ to function at EU meetings in English, rather than using interpretation. Distinguished
European scholars, such as Bessie Dendrinos of Athens and Peter Harder of Copenhagen, have commented (in personal communications) on the sensation of freedom they experienced when,
after decades of professional functioning in English, they had occasion to write something in their first language. Ulrich Ammon of Duisburg, who is not an Anglicist, makes a plea (2000) for
more tolerance of non-native English, and cites evidence of the evaluation of medical research in the Netherlands and Scandinavia to the effect that an identical text is ranked as being of
better content when written in English rather than in the local language (see also Phillipson, 2002). Gate-keeping in scholarly journals tends to be firmly in the hands of native speakers of
English and affects content as well as form. In the ‘information society’ and the ‘global’ village, the languages used for information are hierarchically ordered and the communication is often
asymmetrical. The entire internationalization process is skewed in favor of native speakers of English and their cultures. The role of English in European and global integration raises key
challenges for the maintenance of other languages in the geopolitics of knowledge creation (see Mendieta, Phillipson, & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2006).
Research and education reinforces linguistic imperialism

The Project and its Cheerleaders The neoliberal project for the New American Centur y that was hatched by the likes of Cheney, Wolfowitz, and
Rumsfeld in the late 20th century is quite explicit about its goals (www. newamericancentury.org). These were assessed by D. Armstrong in Harper’s Magazine 305,
2002 (cited in Harvey, 2005, p. 80). The plan is for the United States to rule the world . The overt theme is unilateralism, but it is ultimately
a story of domination. It calls for the United States to maintain its military superiority and prevent new
rivals from rising up to challenge it on the world stage. It calls for dominion over friends and enemies
alike. It says not that the United States must be more powerful, or most powerful, but that it must be absolutely powerful. English has been essential to this
mission, the project being explicitly endorsed in an article ‘In praise of cultural imperialism’ in Foreign Policy, by David
Rothkopf, Director of the Kissinger Institute (1997, p. 45): It is in the economic and political interest of the United States to ensure
that if the world is moving toward a common language, it be English ; that if the world is moving toward
common telecommunications, safety, and quality standards, they be American; and that if common values are being developed, they be values
with which Americans are comfortable. These are not idle aspirations. English is linking the world. The role of scholars in facilitating this empire in the twentieth
century is explored in Neil Smith’s American empire. Roosevelt’s geographer and the prelude to globalization (2003). Geography served a similar function in legitimating and servicing French
Smith’s study traces the shift through territorial, colonial dominance (the
empire (Said, 1993, p. 205), as did linguistics (Calvet, 1974).
to the attempt to dominate globally through economic means: ‘The American

invasion of the Philippines in 1898)
Empire, which grasped for global power at the beginning, middle, and end of the twentieth century, was
built on a strategic recalibration of geography with economics, a new orchestration of world geography in the pursuit of
economic accumulation’ (Smith, 2003, pp. xvii–xviii). The narrative thread of the book is the biography of one geographer, Isaiah Bowman, who played a key role in the
politics of negotiating the treaties that concluded the First World War and the institutional arrangements (Bretton Woods, U.N., etc.) concluding the Second World War. The book is thus ‘a
academia serves to legitimate the thrust for

history of geography, but even more, it is a geography of history’ (op. cit., p. xvii). The study reveals how
global dominance, in particular the interlocking of the discipline of geography with economics, politics and
international affairs. Academia services the ‘global’ needs of the political project: ‘In the 1980s the Defense Mapping Agency alone employed nine thousand people, far
outstripping any civilian counterpart, and was the major single employer of geography majors’ (op. cit., p. 3). Academia perpetuates a system in which ‘: : :
global power is disproportionately wielded by a ruling class that remains tied to the national interests of
the United States’ (op. cit., p. xix). This class uses English, probably to the exclusion of all other languages , unlike the
captains of industry and finance in continental Europe, who tend to be multilingual. Political discourse is an important constituent of the
empire project, with English energetically marketed. Thus after the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, the panaceas marketed for the solution of
the post-communist world were ‘liberal democracy, the free market, and above all, the English language’ (British Council Annual Report, 1991–92). The British Council was established in 1935
to promote British interests and English, partly in response to the success of the fascist governments of Italy and Germany in using language teaching and higher education scholarships to
promote their national interest. The British Council is a para-statal body that promotes British cultural, educational, and linguistic interests worldwide. ‘English should become the first foreign
Britain is a
language throughout Europe, the lingua franca of the changed economic and political circumstances,’ according to Douglas Hurd, British Foreign Secretary in 1991. ‘
global power with worldwide interests thanks to the Commonwealth, the Atlantic relationship, and the English
language,’ according to Malcolm Rifkind, British Foreign Secretary in 1995.4 English is marketed for seemingly altruistic purposes, ‘English skills have been identified as a major factor in
the process of reconstruction and transition to democracy’ (British Council recruitment ad., 1993), but self-interest lags never far behind. The English language is promoted in order ‘to exploit
the position of English to further British interests’ as one aspect of maintaining and expanding the ‘role of English as the world language into the next century’ (British Council press pack
English is not merely an instrument for communication, it is a value one identifies

launching ‘English 2000’ in March 1995).
with for the social functions the language is seen as serving, its utility in the linguistic market. Its use is spreading worldwide. Thus in
continental Europe, English is by far the most widely taught foreign language , and proficiency in English is
increasingly required in key societal domains, such as business and higher education (Phillipson, 2006) and in
European Union institutions (Phillipson, 2003). In Singapore, English has played a key role in nation-building and is increasingly used not only in commerce and the
public sphere but also in the home: the proportion of children starting school who come from English speaking homes has increased from 35% in 1996 to 50% in 2006, the figures varying
considerably between the key ethnically defined groups (Pakir, 2008).5 In schools in Karnataka, the heartland of the Indian information technology industry, English is increasingly being
adopted as the sole medium of education, but the state is in principle committed to enforcing Kannada-medium education—while 71% of the state government’s ministers send their children
to English-medium schools.6 There are proposals to make Chile bilingual in Spanish and English, advocates of adopting English as a second official language in Japan, and so forth. In all these
processes are in force that involve implementing greater use of the English language produ ct. The
instances,
declared goals are primarily economic but also cultural and political , with considerable uncertainty about where the project will lead.
The tone is set by Kaplan, an influential U.S. language
The scholarly cheer-leaders of global English are complicit in legitimating this dominance.
policy scholar, in an article that asks ‘English—the accidental language of science?’ to which he replies:
‘The ascendancy of English is merely the outcome of the coincidence of accidental forces’ (2001, p. 21, see Phillipson,
2002). Kaplan detaches the current role of English from its historical causal determinants, and conflates process and project. In similar vein, Crystal (1999, p. 110), the prolific British linguist,
the current dominance of English is due to the language being ‘in the right place at the right
explains that
time.’ It is baffling that any linguist, writing in a standard, normative form of the language, can claim that ‘ The English language has already grown to
be independent of any form of social control’ (op. cit., p. 139). His description of both the product and the process serves to legitimate the project in an
uncritical way. Some political scientists (of the relatively few who are concerned with language issues) have embraced the project eagerly. van Parijs (2004) sees the move towards English as a
global lingua franca as inevitable and desirable, provided certain conditions of fairness are met. He envisages English as the language of a global demos without there being a single ethnos: ‘a
forum can be shared thanks to a common language without the culture’ (ibid., p. 118). Both van Parijs and de Swaan (2001) are adherents of rational choice theory, which stresses individual
choice but ignores many of the societal factors, including education, that constrain choice. This detaches present-day English from its historical roots, its current role being due to ‘No
conspiracy by the Brits, let alone the Americans, but the spontaneous outcome of a huge set of decentralised decisions, mainly by non-anglophones, about which language to learn and which
language to use’ (van Parijs 2004, p. 124). Both scholars focus on language as communication and fail to integrate it with issues of identity and power, in effect detaching language from
politics. This is a weakness that Gramsci’s work on language hegemony would remedy, so as to ensure that the study of ‘global’ English does not concentrate falsely on purely instrumental
functions and draws on a rich tradition in earlier political theory (Ives, 2006, which contains a detailed analysis of the weaknesses of van Parijs’ and de Swaan’s approaches). De Swaan’s book
on ‘the global language system’ (2001, reviewed in Phillipson, 2004) has little on globalization or linguistically defined social stratification, linguicism (Skutnabb Kangas, 1988). There is no
analysis of the cultural dimensions of North-South relations or global cultural flows, or how English serves to integrate particular communities (states, or professions) and interest groups
(finance capital, corporations, media and educational products). His layered language ‘constellation’ is essentially a simple model of triglossia, wrapped in algebraic game theory. Like most
, it is loosely anchored in (neo)liberal social theory. One example of how English Language
work in diglossia
Teaching specialists service empire can be seen in a report in November 1995 in TESOL Matters by
Sandra McKay, an ‘Academic Specialist in a United Nations sponsored program to develop the use of
Latvian among Latvian residents in all domains of society .’ The efforts were to be directed towards building up Latvian learning among those
with Russian as a mother tongue. (Latvian has in fact recovered its pre-1939 role as the sole unifying language for all its citizens, Druviete 1999, and is one of the European Union’s 23 official
languages.) ButMcKay reports that the language to unite the two communities ought to be English. ‘English will
provide a natural medium in which Latvians and Russian can work to establish a new independent
Latvia’ (McKay 1995, p. 17). She also notes that ‘English is opening Latvia to trade and commerce with the West ,’ and names
McDonald’s and TV films as showing the way. Corporate consumerism and U.S. lifestyle are thus wedded to the learning of English. It is also important to recall that TESOL (the Teaching
of English to Speakers of Other Languages) itself is a significant export item —teaching materials, examinations, know-how,
teachers et al.—for the British and Americans, and a vital dimension of English linguistic neoimperialism . The
asymmetrical relationship between ‘natives’ and ‘non-natives’ is confirmed in the naming of the profession. ‘The naming ‘‘TESOL’’ already assigns dichotomous Self-Other subject positions to
teacher and learner. It interactionally and officially positions the Anglo-teacher as Self, and positions the learner in a life trajectory of forever being Other—continuing the colonial storyline: : : ’
Language is a central dimension of ideological control, perpetuating the subordination of

(Lin and Luke, 2006, p. 67).
colonial times into the present: ‘: : : colonization’s legacy has become invisible ideological hegemony —
domination with consent; that is, the previously colonized peoples still worship the languages, cultures, music, arts,
knowledges, pedagogies, or most aspects of Western life as more advanced, progressive and superior —as
lying closer towards the end point of modernity’ (ibid., p. 69). Discrimination against immigrants to the United States, for whom
English is a foreign language, is integral to public education , ESOL being construed as deficit and inferior, with all Other languages having low
status (Motha, 2006). Some of the key players are disarmingly frank about their global ambitions. The Web site of Educational Testing Services of Princeton, NJ, which is responsible for the
TOEFL test of English language proficiency, states: Linguistic imperialism ties around the world. ETS Global BV now has subsidiaries in Europe and Canada, and it will be expanding into other
countries and regions as well. Our subsidiaries offer a full range of ETS products, services and learning solutions, including English language learning products and services, training and
technical assistance, design, development and delivery of large-scale assessments, test design and delivery. Our global mission goes far beyond testing. Our products and services enable
U.S.
opportunity worldwide by measuring knowledge and skills, promoting learning and performance, and supporting education and professional development for all people worldwide.
interests and services are thus in symbiosis with the evaluation of proficiency in English, with the
assessment of linguistic capital. Those wishing for credentials in this linguistic market must invest in the form of ‘global’ English that ETS (and its U.K. equivalent,
www.cambridgeesol.org) profitably dispense. They administer what Bourdieu refers to as the sanctions of the (global) linguistic market. We need to trace its origins.
Link --- Generic Engagement Link
The perpetuation of linguistic dominance of English through its use as a lingua
franca and main language of diplomacy is bad --- directly relates to imperialist
tendencies
We are experiencing massive changes in the world’s economy, ecology, and communications. There is
increasing inequality in our societies, and the military budget of the United States has doubled under President George Bush. In tandem with
these momentous changes, the use of English is increasing. There is therefore a real challenge to explore how and
why language use is changing, and how this relates to economic and political factors. In clarifying the linguistic dimensions
of globalization, in relation to corporate power and what can be seen as the new imperialism ( Harvey, 2005 ) or
neoliberal empire (Pieterse, 2004), the challenge for macro-sociolinguistics is to identify factors influencing current and future language policy. These issues are
addressed by documenting the expansion of ‘global English,’ tracing its historical roots, and attempting
to elaborate adequate theoretical principles for the study of neoimperial English . The progression in the article is from
description, seeing global English as product, process or project, through foundational influences and influential rhetoric advocating an intensification of English speaking as a unifying factor
globally, to theory-building that can capture and explain what we are experiencing. Global English: Product, Process, and Project The English language has been
taken worldwide by soldiers, traders, and settlers, the process being initiated in the British Isles (Wales, Ireland
et al.) and in the ‘colonies’ of North America . When these succeeded in detaching themselves from the
British crown in the late 18th century , Noah Webster made a case for political independence being
strengthened through linguistic independence from Britain so as to establish a specific ‘national characte r’: ‘Let us
then seize the present moment, and establish a national language as well as a national government.’2 There have been blueprints for U.S. dominance
of the two American continents since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 and for global domination for more
than a century. Edward Said’s study of culture and imperialism notes (1993,p. 7) that ‘‘The American experience,
as Richard van Alstyne makes clear in Rising American Em pire, was from the beginning founded upon an idea of ‘‘an imperium—
a dominion, state or territory, and increase in strength and power .’’ Throughout the 20th century, the American Century, as Henry Luce
termed it in Life magazine in 1942, the need for new markets due to capital over-accumulation was a primary concern of U.S. foreign policy. Said ruefully notes, when exploring
the key role of ideas, of representations, and mental universes, that ‘the rhetoric of power all too easily
produces an illusion of benevolence when deployed in an imperial setting ,[: : : ] used [: : : ] with deafeningly repetitive frequency in
the modern period, by the British, the French, the Belgians, the Japanese, the Russians, and now the Americans’ (Said, 1993, p. xix). There is no clearer instance of
the way political discourse corrupts than when the dominant economic system of capitalism has been
conflated with ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom,’ the rhetorical hubris of U.S. occupation. Opinions differ on the
extent to which English remains a single language or has spawned independent offspring, the English
languages (McArthur, 2002). The outcome of any assessment depends on how the evidence is approached and the purpose of such sociolinguistic analysis, and there are serious
weaknesses in the existing research on English worldwide (Bruthiaux, 2003). Despite Webster’s efforts, there was no doubt about Anglo American
linguistic and cultural unity in Winston Churchill’s mind —and in his ancestry, his mother was American. Churchill was awarded the Nobel Prize in
Literature largely on the strength of his A history of the English-speaking peoples (four volumes, Cassell, 1954–56), a celebration of peoples united by English. In 1941 Prime Minister Churchill
the British
secretly met President Franklin Roosevelt to coordinate war strategy, and plan for the ensuing peace. He declared in the House of Commons on 24 August 1941: ‘: : :
Empire and the United States who, fortunately for the progress of mankind, happen to speak the same
language and very largely think the same thoughts : : : ’ (Morton, 1943, p. 152). This language was not to be confined to the territories of
the United Kingdom and the United States. It was an instrument for disseminating ‘the same thoughts’ throughout the British
Empire, encapsulated in Lord Macaulay’s much quoted spin doctoring text on the role of British education in India, 1835, namely to produce ‘A class of
persons, Indians in blood and color, English in taste, in opinion, in morals and in intellect. ’ U.S. President John Adams
had earlier affirmed to Congress: ‘English is destined to be in the next and succeeding centuries more generally the
language of the world than Latin was in the last or French in the present age.’3 As these examples suggest, efforts to globalize English are not a
new phenomenon: the ‘manifest destiny’ that Americans have ascribed to themselves involves a linguistic component. Empires have taken different forms over the past two
centuries as a result of wars and economic and financial changes, and to this day, linguistic globalisation remains a goal rather than a reality, an ‘imagined community’ akin to nationalist
constructions (Anderson, 1983), a project in the minds of those who celebrate the dissemination of English worldwide. Learners of English may well be motivated by a desire to become
members of this imagined global community (Ryan, 2006). ‘ Global English’ can be seen as a produc t (the code, the forms used in a geographically diverse
community of users),as a process (the means by which uses of the language are being expanded, by agents activating the underlying structures,
ideologies, and uses), or as a project (the normative goal of English becoming the default language of
international communication and the dominant language of intranational communication in an increasing number of countries worldwide). The processes
and project are dependent on use of the product, and on ideological commitment to the project . There is
a strong measure of wishful thinking in the projection of those who claim that English is ‘the world’s
lingua franca,’ since maximally one-third of humanity have any competence in the language at all. Likewise, the notion that
English is the language of science is contradicted by the fact that many other languages are used in
higher education and research. But such discourse serves both to constitute and confirm English
dominance and American empire, and the interlocking structures and ideologies that underpin ‘global’
English and corporate interests. Investing in the linguistic capital of English (to use Bourdieu’s term, 1992) is a project that transcends national borders, with the
product and processes privileging users of the language in the current world ‘order.’ This is profoundly influenced by those who wield
economic and finance capital (Harvey, 2004) and military might (Pieterse, 2004). The power of English as a symbolic system in the
global linguistic market is such that its legitimacy tends to be uncritically accepted. Bourdieu’s analysis of the consolidation
of the power of the national (official) language can be upgraded to account for the ways in which English is being promoted and accepted globally: All symbolic domination presupposes, on the
part of those who submit to it, a form of complicity which is neither passive submission to external constraint nor a free adherence to values. The recognition of the legitimacy of the official
language [: : : ] is inscribed, in a practical state, in dispositions which are impalpably inculcated, through a long and slow process of acquisition, by the sanctions of the linguistic market, and
which are therefore adjusted, without any cynical calculation or consciously experienced constraint, to the chances of material and symbolic profit which the laws of price formation
characteristic of a given market objectively offer to the holders of a given linguistic capital. (Bourdieu, 1992, pp. 50–51) Attempting to develop adequate theory for exploring the nature and
forms of the global linguistic market will be reverted to in the final section of this article. We first need some idea of how the linguistic market is being shaped and legitimated.
Link --- International Law/Multilateralism
Jargon and speed of native speakers are used to oppress others that speak in
international conferences and institutions
2008)//chiragjain
There is a great gap in the working knowledge of English between native speakers and non-native
speakers, especially those speakers whose mother tongues are linguistically distant from English . Thus,
native speakers of English intentionally try to push non-native speakers out of discussions by making a full
use of tactics that stem from phonetic, idiomatic, syntactic, and pragmatic characteristics unique only in
English...For example, they step up the speed of speech, use a large number of jargons and idioms, or make
utterances that are grammatically complex.... These communicative tactics are used to take advantage of lower
proficiency of non-native speakers in English (Takahashi,1991,pp.188-189). As Takahashi observed, it seems that native
speakers of English in the English- dominated conferences , use their linguistic advantage to magnify their
power so that they can establish the unequal and asymmetrical relationship with the non-English-speakers and
thus push them out of the mainstream of communication. There are a great many other examples of linguistic and communicative inequality arising from the
dominance of English, but it is sufficient to report one more example. W.J. Coughlin, an American journalist, reports on the " Mokusatsu" mistake that caused the
atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Coughlin,1953). He reports that the Japanese prime minister's response of " Mokusatsu" to the demand of complete
surrender by the United Allies, was misinterpreted to mean "reject" the demand, driving the then American President, Harry Truman, to decide on the atomic
bombing. "Mokusatsu" actually means both "ignore" and "no comment." The point in this historic misunderstanding
of a word is that in
the English-dominated Japan-U.S. communication , that the Americans always have the control of
semantics under which the subtle nuances of the Japanese semantics are "ignored" or "overlooked ." In
other words, in the English-dominated communication, English speakers are in a position to control communication to their
own advantage.
Link --- Narratives China-English Translation
Translation of narratives to English ---- results in misrepresentation and dominance
of English
Chan 13 (Tak Hung, Professor and Head of the Department of Translation, Lingnan University. He was
Assistant Inspector of Schools in Hong Kong in the 1980s, and later taught at the City Polytechnic of
Hong Kong, Indiana University, Georgetown University, and the University of Maryland. He was a
Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center for Chinese Studies, University of Michigan, USA (1991-92) and a
Visiting Professor at Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan (spring 2014), “(Hidden) translation as academic
practice: translating Xiaoshuo (Small Talk) and American Sinology”
http://commons.ln.edu.hk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2918&context=sw_master, //VZ)
Much effort has been devoted over the past few centuries to presenting China to the West in the English
language Invariably
, beginning with the classical sinology of nineteenth-century Britain and reaching a climax through late-twentieth century Chinese Studies in the States, carried out mostly in departments of East Asian languages and literature/cultures.
there is one shared element in these approaches: translation. the pervasive use of English as the In our age,
language of academic discourse, combined with the increased hegemony of English in fields beyond
those of business, recreation and diplomacy, means "Westernization" of forms of knowledge related that the
to Chinese culture and tradition In the new linguistic imperialism, what is prominent are the
has become inescapable.
misrepresentation, distortion and manipulation carried out in connection with the translation of ideas
from Chinese into English. The present article focuses on ideas rather than texts in order to
understand the cannibalization of one language by another.
The aff’s method of translation and defense of translation results in linguistic

epistemicide and defends linguistic inequality
http://commons.ln.edu.hk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2918&context=sw_master , //VZ//chiragjain)
5. Conclusions with the rise of China in the two past decades to become a viable economic and political power , it
can be expected that arguments should arise in academia concerning whether one should champion an "international approach" like that suggested by (in Ming Dong (2013), or prioritize a
more "Sinicized" approach.' Unfazed by the fact that the term "Sinology" has been disparaged by a generation of post-colonialist critics,Geremie Barme, speaking
from another part of the Anglophone world, has recently spoken of the need to reinvigorate Sinology. In an article
published in connection with the launching of the online journal ('Irina Heritage Newsletter (later renamed China Heritage Quarterly, of which he is currently Editor) in 2005, he
advocates a "new Sinology" which nevertheless declares its integral links to classical Sinology and
contemporary Chinese studies in the US. Even though Barme reiterates the "newness" of his project, his methodology does not in
actual fact depart substantially from established practice , what we have called "the translational mode." The emphasis on
critical engagement with the Sinophone world, the deployment of textual analytical methods (kaozheng), and
the "embodied involvement" with China, characterized as "an 'Other' that haunts us from within " (2005: para.
8)-these reflect what has been done by James Legge and Co. The only conspicuous change made by
Barme is his inclusion of research concerning the "Sinophone world," which includes Taiwan and overseas Chinese communities as
well. The outsider perspective and the issue of practical relevance (”knowing about the enemy” are still there, although the political agenda is perhaps a little muted. Area studies" rhetoric is
transferred to Australia: [I]t is obvious that the buzzwords that attract attention in Australia are national security and economic benefits; and applications to national funding bodies are
Translation as the methodological tool for Sinologists, both old and new.
invariably couched in terms of scholars providing a ˜better understanding of our regionâ (2005: paral2).”
needs to be problematized. The realization that a piece of published research has been mediated by
translation makes all the difference. There is no problem with the translation of terminology and expressions, even the structure of thinking, but such translation
Knowing that certain terms have been used as expedient measures when exact
should be made explicit.
equivalents are not available is the key to unraveling the practices that enable the local to be subsumed
under a global or international framework. and erase cultural or regional differences that are reflected
in language. In the case of our critical examination of the translations of xiaoshuo into the novel or fiction, the crucial point is not that mistranslations have come into being, but that
inadequate translations can play into the hands of the scholar presenting a “global" interpretation of a
Chinese term that refuses to be translated. The untranslatability of xiaoshuo underlines the Orientalizing discursive maneuvers that have been carried out,
unannounced as it were, in academic publication. Translation criticism is not used here to show that comparative literature is
an impossible undertaking, but to uncover the gaps, fissures and incompatibilities that lie hidden in what
gets translated. In not being identified, undercover translations serve to advance the agenda of the
advocates of monolinguism and the defenders of linguistic inequality, participating in what amounts to
an act of epistemicide.
The commodification of Chinese literature through translation is bad --- the aff’s
nearrative only perpetuates the hegemony of English
http://commons.ln.edu.hk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2918&context=sw_master, //VZ//chiragjain)
It can be argued that the term "fiction" is a perfectly adequate translation for contemporary Chinese
works But the re-imagination of pre-modem
. Indeed, since the beginning of the twentieth century, Chinese novelists have turned out what is akin to Western fiction, thereby justifying the label.
xiaoshuo specimens in accordance with the modern Western classificatory system is pure anachronism .
By way of translation, a universalizing-or Orientalizing-'effort is

Violence is done when the past is re-categorized and re-incorporated into a modernized, Westernized present.
exerted to recast a Chinese artifact in the Western mold, its original identity denied under the guise of
an equivalent translation . And given the fact that historicity figured so powerfully in "small talk," its erasure-or its displacement by fictionality--cannot be without consequences. The question is why, in any case, history and fiction should be
re-classification in the light of a makeshift

placed in diametric, irreconcilable opposition, or why one has to be valorized over and above the other. Given the fact that fiction is literature's most influential genre. its
translation, carried out almost imperceptibly, bears looking into more closely , a genre can have . Admittedly
some universal characteristics, and possibilities for classifying genres trans-culturally do exist. Problems
occur when the categorical distinctions are not made descriptively , through close attention to concrete, analyzable examples, or prescriptively, and when standards derived
from other cultures are applied or superimposed. The categorization of genres is important not just in that it reflects a culture's view of the world; it also provides the groundwork upon which criticism and interpretation can proceed. The bibliographers and bibliophiles of pre-modem
China constructed a special taxonomy relating to Chinese forms of cultural expression which differed from those of the West, working under the influence of a distinct tradition. Besides, ideological significances and economic parameters also enter into generic classifications (cf. Hitchcock
2011: 354-355). Undeniably, Sinologists have vested interests in subscribing to certain taxonomic models. They understand the power of genre and its usefulness as cultural capital. In fact, other than in literary scholarship, artificial equivalences were drawm between Western religious
terms and Buddhist-Taoist ones in the seventeenth century by the Jesuit missionary translators in China. One might wish that the divergences can lead to a productive frisson between the Chinese and Western genres, and perhaps even to re-categorization of the latter. The fact, however,
is that the erasure of the traces of incommensurability has not encourage much paradigmatic re-examination, if the publications of the last few decades are anything to go by. Among the handful of articles dealing specifically with the problematic translation of Chinese generic terms from
Neather delves into the range of problems arising from the use of
a translation studies perspective is Robert Neather's "The Translation of Generic Designations" (2011).
"rough cognates" derived from the Western tradition to translate the word fu, a genre which reached its
height of popularity in the Han dynasty but continued to be written in China till the end of the imperial
period. he enumerates the
After taking a look at the various rather strained translations, like "prose-poetry," "rhymed prose" (Cyril Birch) and "rhapsody" (David Knechtges), from the parameters of genericity and cultural appropriateness.
failure of these terms to facilitate East-West comparison Instead of "help[ing] to mediate difference" .
(2011: 166), they fail to highlight the special generic characteristics which developed historically in China
through the centuries . Notwithstanding the litnitations of cross-cultural mapping, Neather comes down in favor of Stephen 0wen's translation, "poetic exposition," a general term which he deems superior; Owen's strategy is much preferred to
Neather also proposes one other

defining the Chinese genre as a single class of works in the West. The problem, nevertheless, is that even Owetr's coinage exhibits a universalizing tendency, and local cultural specificity is lost.
strategy-transliteration. He notes the advantage of its being a method that can usefully bypass several
insurmountable problems Understandably, there is ample
. Much favored by Chinese scholars, this term reveals an effectively "nativizing" strategy. /NR is xiaoshuo.
resistance to transliterating the term. even to transliteration in general. According to one argument, some standard terminology is necessary for comparative
China-West studies, and its absence makes it impossible for discussions in comparative literature in particular to be conducted. Whether that is so, of course, is open to question. In a gargantuan effort to introduce critical terminology in the English language, supported financially by the
Chinese University of Hong Kong, National Taiwan University and Tamkang University in the l990s, John J. Deency worked on the compilation of an encyclopedic dictionary of classical literary terms in English. In eight short essays which tackle the theoretical issues pertaining to 12 key
terns in the Chinese literary tradition, transliterations are used. although a make-do literal translation is provided after the first, or second. appearance of the term (see Deeney 1994). The subjects of the essays are: tongbian (tradition and change). shiyanzhi ("the poem articulates what is
on the mind intently"), yuanching (heartfelt feelings), fu (narrative-descriptive mode; rhyme-prose), bi (similaic or analogical mode), xing (evocative-associative mode), wenroudunhou (gentleness and kindness), jingiie ("a state of free and unlimited imagination"), fenggu (wind and bone;
The undesirability of translating the literal meaning into English is

forceful and affective power in literature), yan (word), xiang (symbol), and yi (meaning).
bodied forth by those instances where alternative translations are possible, and in one case by an
awkward word-for-word translation whereas the articles show how academic discourse is
("wind and bone"), . taken together,
not necessarily impeded by a substantial use of transliterations. A second argument against

transliteration is that it is a sign that the translator has given up, It is, in short, reflecting an inability to render a particular term into the target language.
a last resort, used when all else fails . For some it falls outside the realm of translation: since the original meaning remains opaque, transliteration is no more than a tom of non-translation. While it can be debated whether
meaning transfer is at the core of the translation act, there has been a long tradition of transliterating Chinese philosophical terms like Dao and ren (humaneness), at times accompanied by rough translations. given in brackets, that are understood by the reader to be far from inaccurate
In recent translation studies research, transliteration as a means of preserving cultural

(see Chan 20ll:l78-I92).
specificity, as the ultimate "foreignizing mode," has been much vaunted, while practicing translators
engaged in the "outward translation" of Chinese texts-into English primarily-consider it as particularly
effective translating into a second language (English) is a movement that is drawing much attention
. Incidentally,
in the China field, its ideological strengths having been studied by a handful of Chinese theorists (c.g. Yu 2008: Wang
its potentials as an alternative or a counter-strategy, are keenly explored.

2009), while
Link --- Science Diplomacy/Researcg
(Information inequality means that those proficient in English get much more from debate than
those of us that use it as a secondary language
or
Lack of information ensures that science diplomacy is one sided and international researchers have
no impact on the world --- turns case
Information control The fourth problem I have discovered in the Hegemony of English is information control. Language
and culture are
inseparable, and so are language and informatio n. When English dominates, the information in English will dominate too. It is
reported that about 80% of the international database is stored in English. On the Internet, about 70% of the
web pages are in English. Also, most international news is sent by way of international news agencies such
as UPI, AP, and Reuters located in the United States and the United Kingdom . The flow of this international news is
one-way: from the English-speaking countries, especially the United States, to the rest of the world. Frustrated by this unequal flow of
international information, some
non-Western countries have been raising voices against “information
inequality” and “imbalance in information flow .” Since the 1970s, mainly the countries belonging to the nonaligned
movement started a project which was later called “New World Information and Communication Order” (NWICO). In the 1976 “New Delhi
Declaration” they pointed out how badly information inequality and imbalance affects developing countries. Here is an excerpt of the
declaration: The present global information flows are marked by a serious inadequacy and imbalance. The means of communication of
information are concentrated in a few countries . The great majority of countries are reduced to being passive recipients of
information which is disseminated from a few centers. However, instead of staying to discuss and tackle this issue, the
United States and the United Kingdom withdrew from UNESCO where the debate on the New World Information
and Communication Order was going on. The two countries obviously decided that the debate was against their national interests. Then,
faced with financial difficulties, the debate in UNESCO quickly lost power, even though it still continues to exist. Since then information gap and
imbalance have continued and even worsened. TheJapanese communication scholar, Yasuhiro Inoue, pointed out the
structure of monopoly of the global news media by the United States and the United Kingdom in his
recent research (Inoue, 2005). Table 15.1 shows that 6 out of the 7 global news media are located in the United States or the United
Kingdom. Referring to this situation of monopoly and imbalance, Inoue comments as follows: The news and information provided will be biased
and will not represent the diverse realities of the world. This is a serious issue, since such news and information will be accepted as “fact” and
the images of the global media have a great impact on the formation of public opinions and international relations” (Inoue, 2005, p. 191). From
these examples we can say that global information is heavily concentrated in the English-speaking countries, especially the United States. The
United States controls global information and the hegemony of English plays a large part in it.
Link --- Taiwan
Engaging Taiwan further enforces the dominance of English that’s empirically proven ---
questioning it through the alt is key to breakdown those underlying structures
In the case of Taiwan, the growing global influence of neo-liberal policies and ideas about autonomy emerge
in the picture too, in the “deregulation” and “democratization ” thrusts that were evident in national reform policies.
However, Yang (2013, p. 13) has argued that while indigenous knowledge, traditions and culture were no longer
suppressed, they were marginalized in the face of attention given to Western forms of knowledge , and to
global priority subjects such as mathematics and science, and English. In the current era, Taiwanese educational reform policies have
addressed a concerted desire for participation in the global knowledge economy, for global competency,
and global cultural awareness as laid out in a 2012 White Paper (MOE, 2012, cited by Yang, 2013, p. 15) that was accompanied by a far-reaching
plan for 12 years of compulsory schooling to be implemented in 2020. The contemporary policy thrusts for education in Taiwan
exemplify the argument of the overriding influence of neo-liberal policies within broader globalization
influences, but within the country there are contextual factors and other needs that have to be considered for a full understanding of the case. For instance,
the degree to which English dominance features in the Taiwanese case recalls the case of South Korea described earlier in this paper: How far will the
Taiwanese policy go to further international participation and modern citizenship goals? Will English
dominance result in the sacrifice of local languages? What real impacts and benefits will accrue to
ordinary people in Taiwan rather than just to the elite?
AT: French IR
English dominates French --- French was the language of International relations but
that’s been a century --- English is necessary to do functionally anything
Leopold 13 --- Veteran journalist reporting from the United Nations (“Does French Stand a Chance Against a Global English-
language Tsunami?”, Evelyn Leopold, Huffington Post, June 4, 2013,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evelyn-leopold/post_4847_b_3383183.html)//chiragjain
French, once the language of high culture, kings and queens, and pin-striped diplomats, is drowning in a
global tsunami of English usage in commerce, science, education — and even at the multilingual United
Nations. The United Nations has six official languages but English and French are considered the “working”
languages. Yet without fluent English, journalists can’t understand press conferences, diplomats can’t
negotiate resolutions and officials in the field can’t file reports. Still many of the U.N. peacekeeping missions are in Africa — and in French-
speaking lands, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Mali. Too often senior U.N. officials heading these operations, while fluent in French, are not native French speakers. At a
recent session at the Consulate General of France in New York, Stephane Dujarric, director of the U.N.’s News and Media Division, said: “So my
simple answer is: learn English! “It’s not abdicating in the face of an English tsunami. It’s about making sure you know how to
swim.” If you don’t speak and especially write English fluently you will not be hired in an international
organization or you will not be able to prosper in it . Let’s recognize that in this very point in human
history, English is the dominant language. Nothing lasts forever. Tomorrow it may be Mandarin and a few hundred years later Arabic. But today it’s English.
That’s an indisputable fact. Dujarric , who was questioned by Margaret Besheer, the Voice of America U.N. correspondent, stressed he was speaking as an
“expatriate living as a linguistic minority,” rather than a U.N. official. He gave some interesting statistics: At the last U.N. General
Assembly session, only 22 of 193 speakers gave speeches wholly in French , while another five countries used French in part of
their speeches. The English-language U.N. news site received 470,000 page views last month, the French 44,000 .
The U.N. twitter accounts in French had 10,000 followers; the English account has 1.5 million . It is rare to
see an internal U.N. memo written in French or even a cable coming from a peacekeeping mission. In
Geneva, the European headquarters of the United Nations, it is no longer necessary to speak French to work for the world body
as was the case a decade ago. In other words, the only way to bring in more French-speakers into the
organization is to make sure that French-speaking staff is able to work in an English-speaking
environment and operate with the same ease as their English-speaking counterparts. If you don’t speak and write English fluently you will
not be hired in an international organization or you can’t prosper in it . Coincidentally, the consulate discussion was held as the French
government proposed a law that would require French universities to teach more courses in English. One scholar called the measure a “suicidal
project” that would lead to France’s sacrificing its language to “Americanization disguised as
globalization,” the New York Times reported. Students took to the streets with signs saying “Sauvons l’Universite” (“Save the University”), even though
the proposal was not mandatory and would affect only one percent of university courses. Many words in English, like “weekend” and “cool,” are
common in French. The French language is also losing ground in Brussels, where the European Union of
27 nations does most of its business in English. Students studying English in France rank 23rd out of 27
EU countries. (One forgets, though, that English is built on a lot of French words and expressions since the Norman Conquest of 1066.) A nd yet... international
organizations would be quite boring without a plethora of languages. The United Nations produces all official documents into English,
French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian and Chinese. Billions of people in the world do not speak English, despite the primacy of English in diplomacy and business. But U.N.
negotiations on resolutions are nearly always done in English , even if the drafters are native French
speakers. And press releases are drafted in English and translated into French only, prompting a protest
from Argentina on behalf of Spanish-speaking nations. But without French-language speakers having
proficiency in English, the pool of French-speaking staff at the United Nations will keep shrinking. “ That, in
turn, will rob the organization of the necessary linguistic and cultural diversity that it needs to effectively do its job,” Dujarric said.
French is no longer the language of diplomacy --- there was a transition early 1900s
Mehtiyev 10 -- Azerbaijan University of Languages Diplomat to the Permanent Representative to the Council of Europe,
Strasbourg, France (“The language of diplomacy”, Afgan Mehtiyev, Spring 2010, California Linguistic Notes Volume XXXV No. 2
Spring, 2010)//chiragjain
English has replaced French as the lingua franca of diplomacy since World War II. The rise of English in
diplomacy began in 1919, in the aftermath of World War I, when the Treaty of Versailles was written in
English as well as in French, the dominant language used in diplomacy at that time. The widespread use of English was further
advanced by the prominent international role played by English-speaking nations (i.e., the United States and the
Commonwealth of Nations) in the aftermath of World War II, particularly in the establishment and organization of the
United Nations and the development of the Internet. English is one of the six official languages of the UN and, along with
French, one of its two working languages (the others are Arabic, Chinese, Russian, and Spanish). English is the current lingua
franca of international business, science, technology, and aviation. The modern trend to use English outside of English-speaking
countries has a number of sources. In the latter half of the 20th century, its widespread use was mostly due to the military, economic, and cultural dominance of the United States of America.
English is also regarded by some as an unofficial global lingua franca owing to the economic, cultural,
and geopolitical power of most of the developed Western nations in world financial and business institutions. The de facto
status of English as the lingua franca in these countries has carried over globally as a result. English is also
overwhelmingly dominant in scientific and technological communications, and all of the world's major scientific journals are published in
English. English is also the lingua franca of international Air Traffic Control communications. Talking about the history of diplomatic language it is very important to say that from the 17th
century to 20th, French was the main language of international relations . In this context in 1539, François the First passed an important
ordinance was a
ordinance in the history of the French language: The Villers-Cotterêts Ordinance decreed that all French administrative documents must be in French. This
crucial turning point in the French language , making it an official language and creating a sense of
nationalism within the country . From 1550 through the 19th century, when France was the leading European power, the
French language flourished and was spoken throughout the world . For this reason, French became
known as a language of diplomacy and international relations in the 17th century. French was widely used in international diplomacy for two
main reasons: first, because France used to be a huge political power. I t was commonly used in the whole of Europe from the 18th century, with the
reign of Louis XIV. Later, Napoleon "helped" the language spread even further. The use of French in international treaties declined with the emergence of the USA after the First World War; in
The second main reason is that it is the language of clarity and

fact, the Treaty of Versailles was written both in English and in French.
precision: it uses many determiners, adverbs, conjunctions, and the like to link parts of sentences and
clarify their relationships. This links very well with the "foisonnement" (expansion) phenomenon in translation from English to French, with the French translation being
on average 15% longer than the source text. Conversely, English is more likely to create ambiguity and its concision can be
seen as bluntness, which was described in the programme as "the enemy of polite discourse". Nowadays, despite the French
language losing much of its prestige, the language of English diplomacy is still haunted by a few French ghosts, here
and there: regime, coup, etiquette, rapprochement and others. The term "language of diplomacy" obviously
can be interpreted in several ways. In this sense, the use of language in diplomacy is of major importance , since
language is not a simple tool, vehicle for transmission of thoughts, or instrument of communication, but often the very essence of the diplomatic vocation, and that has been so from the early
beginnings of our profession. That is why from early times the first envoys of the Egyptian pharaohs, Roman legates, mediaeval Dubrovnik consuls, etc., had to be educated and trained people,
well-spoken and polyglots.
AT: IR Not Dominated
International institutions center around English regardless of where --- Rotary
proves
The remaining principles relate to free access to trade and raw materials, increased economic collaboration, unhindered use of the high seas, the creation of a post-Nazi peace, freedom from want, a commitment to abandonment
of the use of force, the disarmament of aggressive nations, and ultimately the ‘establishment of a wider permanent system of general security.’ Churchill, in a broadcast describing this commitment, refers to the ‘two major
groupings of the human family, the British Empire and the United States’ and refers to the ‘deep underlying unities which stir and, at decisive moments, rule the English speaking peoples throughout the world’ (cited in Morton,
1943, p. 152). The Atlantic Charter was seized on by colonial subjects in the British and French empires, from southern Africa to Algeria, who naturally wished the principle of freedom from oppressive rule to apply to them as well.
They tried to argue that due to the Charter, ‘recognition of the right of peoples to liberty and self-determination gave to nationalism the sanction of the great powers’ (cited in Davidson, 1978, p. 202). But Churchill declared in the
House of Commons that the Charter was only supposed to apply to countries occupied by the Germans and Italians. Churchill had no wish to preside over the dissolution of the British Empire. Roosevelt, by contrast, said the
Charter applied to ‘all of humanity’ (ibid.). There are many instruments that bind Anglo-American elites together and consolidate linguistic hegemony. A major link is the Rhodes scholarships at the University of Oxford (www.
rhodesscholar.org). Cecil Rhodes, the ultimate British imperialist, was convinced that ‘the Anglo-Saxon race was the highest to be evolved in a divine plan : : : hence his preoccupation with British expansion, particularly in Africa,
and with making money for the power to carry out his ideas’ (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1971 edition). The Rhodes scholarships, established in his will, aim at educating future world leaders and at instilling ‘the advantage of the
colonies as well as to the United Kingdom of the retention of the unity of the empire.’ Through collaboration with the United States, the scholarships are intended to lead to ‘the union of the English-speaking people throughout the
world’ (ibid.). More than 7000 Rhodes scholars have been selected since 1904, mostly from the United States but also from a wide range of Commonwealth countries and Germany, making them the ‘oldest international
fellowships’ awarded not so much on academic merit as their ‘promise of effective service in the world in the decades ahead.’ A primarily Anglo-American body with similar goals and means is the English-Speaking Union, which
aims at ‘creating global understanding through English.’ Its publication English— a world language (1991) declares on the rear cover that it was ‘originally founded to foster good relations between Britain and the United States,
later extended its orbit to the Commonwealth. It now operates on a worldwide scale.’15 Its Web site declares that it is an international educational charity founded in 1918 to promote ‘international understanding and friendship
through the use of the English language. That has never been so important and never so possible : : : With almost 40 branches in the United Kingdom, and more than 50 international branches in countries in every part of the world,
the ESU’s mission to bring people together and share their experiences has never been more relevant.’ It organizes competitions, lectures and educational activities, enjoys royal patronage, and is funded by corporate sponsors on
both sides of the Atlantic. These include, not surprisingly, educational institutions and publishers of English learning materials. I am not familiar with any research on this institution and its contribution to the maintenance of English
linguistic hegemony Rightwing U.S. think tanks are also busy promoting the idea of a single cultural English-speaking universe. For instance, Bennett’s The Anglosphere Challenge. Why the English-speaking Nations Will Lead the
Way in the Twenty-first Century (2004) defines the Anglosphere as implying ‘the sharing of fundamental customs and values at the core of English-speaking cultures: individualism; rule of law; honoring of covenants; in general the
high trust characteristics described by Francis Fukujama in Trust: the social virtues and the creation of prosperity; and the emphasis on freedom as a political and cultural value.’16 (ibid., pp. 79–80). Bennett et al. have formed a
‘non-profit organization,’ the Anglosphere Institute, to conduct policy research and further the concepts of the Anglosphere and the Network Commonwealth (www.anglosphereinstitute.org). The underlying conviction is that
‘Increasingly during the past few centuries, the English-speaking world has been the pathfinder for all of humanity’ through the ‘first modern nation-state, the first liberal democratic state, : : : ’ (ibid., p. 67). He argues that the
North American Free Trade Association and the EU are ‘of limited value at best, and at worst do harm when they attempt to homogenize nations with substantially different characteristics.’ (ibid., p. 68). In other words, British
people have more in common with Americans, and the media and internet are intensifying this convergence, rather than variants of English signifying fragmentation (ibid., p. 75). Bennett advocates the merging of the United
Kingdom with NAFTA and its detachment from Europe so that the British defence industry can merge with the United States and, as in finance, function as a ‘seamless market’ (ibid., p. 167). This would fit snugly with the massive
and increasing influence of military expenditure in a USA committed to permanent war. Bennett is convinced that ‘The past thirty years of British history have encompassed a period of political and cultural schizophrenia that has
Rotary International is another good

created ongoing unresolved tensions in its national life and identity’ (ibid., p. 236), the solution to which is an Anglosphere Network Commonwealth.
example of the way English and Anglo-American interests go hand in hand. Rotary has existed since
1905. Half of its 1.3 million members are native speakers of English, but the organization has nine official
languages (see www.rotary.org). At its annual conference in Barcelona in 2002, neither Spanish (one of the nine) nor Catalan
was used at the opening ceremony, and English was virtually the exclusive conference language . The proceedings of
Rotary’s centenary conference in Chicago in 2005 were published only in English.17 In this way, Rotary operates in a similar way to many ‘international’
conferences, at which English dominates, even when the organisation in theory operates in other
languages as well. ‘International’ events tend to be conducted in English without thought being given to
the advantages that this gives native speakers or the way this practice marginalises other languages and
their speakers. The extent of U.S. involvement in determining European integration needs reporting in some detail, since few are aware of it. Pascaline Winand’s Eisenhower, Kennedy, and the Unites States of
Europe (1991) traces the involvement of key people in U.S. government circles in planning how Europe could be integrated after World War II. Many were close friends and allies of Jean Monnet, the Frenchman who planned many
The planning process started in the Council on Foreign Relations,

of the institutional developments and headed the first European institutions.
founded in 1921, which drew on ‘the elite of the American business, academic, law, media, and
government communities’ (ibid., 2). The COFR, together with the editor of Foreign Affairs, saw the need in September 1939 for policy papers: 682 memoranda were transmitted to the Department of
State, mainly funded by the Rockefeller Foundation (ibid., 3). John Foster Dulles, a Republican who later became Eisenhower’s Foreign Secretary, proposed western Europe as a single economic unit in 1947. This agenda
underpinned the Marshall Plan, which was made conditional on the economies of European countries being opened up. Sixteen European nations formed the Committee for European Economic Cooperation on 15 July 1947. The
Schuman Plan, 9 May 1950, was essentially written by Monnet, with assistance from American diplomats based in France (ibid., 22). General Eisenhower, when Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, ‘made a strong plea for
European economic and political integration before the English-Speaking Union in the great ballroom of Grosvenor Place, Park Lane, on 3 July 1951’ (ibid., 28). There were many competing views on both sides of the Atlantic
(Atlanticists, internationalists, Europeanists, Gaullists, the British), but those in favour of a unification that would be economic, political, and military were able to influence matters decisively. Increasingly the Americans saw the
need to work behind the scenes, so that it could appear that it was Europeans deciding matters. The free flow of goods, services, capital, and people was a founding principle of European integration from 1957, and ultimately
achieved in the 1990s with the common market (ibid., 129). European Union (EU) policies implement the plans of the corporate world, as documented in George Monbiot’s Captive state. The corporate takeover the Britain
(2000),the neoliberal agenda that Reagan and Thatcher embraced. Tony Blair’s support for Bush II confirms President de Gaulle’s analysis that the U.K. was (and remains) a Trojan horse for U.S. interests. Denmark has been a less
visible Trojan horse, but its existence has been verifiable in recent years. A covert agreement in 1951 allowed the United States to use a base in Greenland for aircraft with nuclear warheads, although this was illegal under Danish
law.18 When a right-wing Danish government came to power in 2001, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fog Rasmussen informed the Danish Foreign Ministry that Denmark’s relationship with the United States now had the highest
priority, higher than both NATO and the EU,19 such a commitment being logically incompatible with EU membership. Denmark is involved in a war of aggression for the first time in 150 years (then disastrously against the
Prussians) by sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iraq decision was made with the votes of roughly one-third of the Parliament; its legality is being challenged in court. The government has permitted no parliamentary
debate on or enquiry into the legality of the exercise. The government admitted 45 covert CIA flights in Denmark between 2001 and 2006, but has chosen not to ask questions about their legality or purpose. This abject acceptance
of the increasing militarization that the imposition of U.S. empire entails is worthy only of a vassal state, a colonised subservience, passively accepting structural and mental occupation. American military interests, from the Cold
War to proposed anti-ballistic missile shields, explain why Denmark is more deeply committed to U.S. empire than all the other Nordic states. This poodle behaviour is disastrous for Denmark (earlier regarded as an enlightened
Nordic country), for the European Union (which in theory has a common security and foreign policy), for the United Nations, and for international law. In parallel with this political subordination, the Danish government naively
believes that English is the only important foreign language. It is neglecting the learning of other languages in the education system. Linguistic neoimperialism dovetails with political and military subordination. The global English
project has already been established, the product merging with many of the overt and covert processes which consolidate the power of users of the language.
Alternatives
Alt --- Ecology of Language Paradigm (1NC)
Vote neg to embrace an ecology of language -- challenging the concept of existing
reality as natural and inevitable is vital to open the possibility of diplomacy
2008)//chiragjain
We have seen in the above discussions that the Hegemony of English
3. The Ecology of Language as a Counter-Strategy to the Hegemony of English
creates and reproduces inequality, discrimination, colonization of the mind as well as Americanization,
transnationalization, and commercialization of our contemporary life . In order to solve these problems and realize equal and emancipatory
communication, the Ecology of Language Paradigm is very much needed as a theory of resisting the Hegemony of
English. The Ecology of Language Paradigm serves as a theory or perspective for promoting a more equal language and communication policy of the world. I have first talked about "The Ecology of Language Paradigm" in
1993 in Honolulu at the East-West Center's "Internationalization Forum." The two paradigms are as follows: "The Diffusion of English Paradigm," which is a dominant position not only in the Anglo-American world but also in the
former British colonies in Asia and Africa, is characterized by theoretical orientations such as capitalism, science and technology, modernization, monolingualism, ideological globalization and internationalization,
transnationalization, Americanization, and homogenization of the world culture, and linguistic, cultural, and media imperialism. In contrast, an alternative theorical orientation critical of the Diffusion of English Paradigm is what I
call the "Ecology of Language Paradigm." This paradigm is based on the theorical positions such as Human Rights Perspective,
equality in communication, multilingualism, maintenance of languages and cultures, protection of
national sovereignties, promotion of foreign language education (Tsuda,1994:58-59). Thus, the Diffusion of English or what I call "The Hegemony of
English Paradigm," is evidently a paradigm serving Western capitalism and civilization, while the " Ecology of Language Paradigm" is a paradigm critical of the
underlying philosophy of Western civilization which advances modernization. For example, the philosophy of
language in the "Hegemony of English Paradigm" is basically functionalism in that it sees language as a mere tool or instrument for
communication and fails to understand that it is an essential component of culture and identity. Thus, the "Hegemony of English Paradigm" disconnects
language from culture and the people using it. On the other hand, the "Ecology of Language Paradigm" assumes
that language is culture and is a source of personal identity . Moreover, the Ecology of Language believes that language is a precious environment which creates
us and our culture. Language is not a mere instrument, but it is an environment that influences and shapes us. Also, the "Ecology of Language Paradigm"
believes that language is people, and people are language. Therefore, inequality among languages means inequality among people. The death
of one language is the death of its speakers. Based on these views of language, the "Ecology of Language Paradigm" advocate the following: (1) The Right to Language (2)
Equality in Communication (3) Multilingualism and Multiculturalism By advocating these goals, the "Ecology of Language Paradigm" attempt to promote linguistic and cultural security for the non-English-speaking people. Let us
The right to language" primarily

look at each of them. 3.1. The Right to Language "The Ecology of Language Paradigm" regards "the right to language" as an essential right for every person . "
refers to an individual's right and freedom to use a language of his/her choice in any circumstances . It
therefore assumes an individual's right and freedom not to use a language that is not his/her choice but imposed upon him/her. The central concept of
"the right to language" resides in the use and recognition of an individual's "mother tongues." Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and Robert Phillipson, authors of Linguistic Human Rights, define "linguistic human rights" and "mother tongues"
We will provisionally regard linguistic human rights in relation to the mother tongue (s) as
as follows:
consisting of the right to identify with it/them , and to education and public services through the medium of it/them. Mother tongues are here
defined as "the language(s) one has learned first and identifies with ." In relation to other languages we will regard linguistic human rights as
consisting of the right to learn an official language in the country of residence, in its standard form (Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 1995:71). Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson emphasize two factors in their definition. One is
"identification with an individual's mother tongues." They believe that emotional attachment to one's mother tongues should be recognized as a part of "the right to language." Another factor emphasized by Skutnabb-Kangas and
Phillipson is social participation and integration. They recognize language as a channel that enables people to participate and integrate into the society. They recognize access to an official language as a part of linguistic human
rights. Therefore, we can provisionally say that "the right to language" involves an individual's right to use, learn,
and identify with a language of his/her choice including his/her mother tongues and official languages of
the country where they live. 3.2. Equality in Communication The prerequisite for equality in international communication is
equality among languages. If a speaker of languageC` and a speaker of languageCa communicates by speaking either one of the two languages, inequality in communication occurs. One of
the most influential factors that justify the use of English in international communication is the taken-
for-granted assumption that English should be used. The English-speaking people unconsciously believe English to be used by all people; namely, they unconsciously hold
linguistic imperialist consciousness, while the non-English-speaking people assume the use of English as the inevitable, indicating the
colonization of the mind on their part. Consciousness revolution is thus needed to alleviate imperialist consciousness as well as
colonization of the mind. One practical approach to establishing equality in international communication is " linguistic
localism," or the use of local languages by all the participants in communication. For example, when an international conference meets in France,
every participant will speak French, while if a conference is held in Japan, Japanese should be used. By practicing
"linguistic localism," we will be able to develop an intercultural awareness of sharing the burden of using
and learning foreign languages. In addition, the use of a third language, or what I call "Neutralingual
Communication" is another approach. When an American and a Chinese communicate in a third language such as French, Russian, or Malay, they will engage in linguistically equal
communication in comparison with communication in English which favors the American one-sidedly. Another strategy for promoting equality in communication is by equalizing linguistic
handicap of the participants in communication. For example, if each one of us speaks a foreign language or a
planned constructed language such as Esperanto , we will be able to establish equality in linguistic
handicap, which will lend to equality in communication. The primary reason for emphasizing equality in communication is that it will establish "symmetry" among people, enabling them to exchange ideas without much
constraint as German social theorist J.Habermas points out when he talks about "The Ideal Speech Situation": Pure intersubjectivity exists only when there is complete symmetry in the distribution of assertion and dispute,
revelation and concealment, prescription and conformity, among the partners of communication.(Habermas, 1970:371) Of all the symmetries, linguistic symmetry is the most
important for realizing equality in communication and the "Ideal Speech Situation." 3.3. Multilingualism and Multiculturalism
Multilingualism and multiculturalism can be also called "Linguistic and Cultural Pluralism," suggesting a
critical theoretical position against monolingualism and monoculturalism which aims at one language
and one cult. When we look back upon the history of modernization, we find that it was the process of building monolingual and monocultural societies, as the standard languages were developed for efficient
communication at the expense of innumerable local languages and dialects. As a result, linguistic hierarchization emerged, and it caused social stratification and inequality as well as discrimination. Globalization
as it is happening today is bringing about a new "Global Class Society" in which English and Anglo-American culture
dominate as a "Global Ruling Class." Linguistic and cultural pluralism is a counterstrategy against the force of monolingualism and monoculturalism. It opposes monolithic singularism
because diversity is the most important index of a truly democratic society. Pluralism is a philosophy of tolerance and conviviality which pursues a harmonious coexistence of different cultures, languages, and peoples. Pluralism
also pays most attention to the minorities, the dominated, and the disadvantaged, as it believes that these people should be given equal opportunities. Thus, linguistic and cultural pluralism is not only criticizing monolingualism and
monoculturalism, but it serves as an important indicator determining whether a certain society is truly democratic or not. The philosophy of pluralism is very necessary if we really wish to realize the democratization of international
communication which is dominated by one language, namely, English. Implications From the Ecology of Language Paradigm The ideas and goals advocated by the Ecology of Language should be incorporated into the theories and
practices of international communication, especially for the purpose of democratizing it. Let me summarize in the following some of the implications from the Ecology of Language for the betterment of international communication
The Ecology of Language provides a critical perspective for the present English-dominated
today. (1)
international communication, and raises consciousness about the issues such as the right to language and equality in communication. (2) The Ecology of Language serves the
non-English-speaking people by providing a theoretical base for building strategies to fight the
Hegemony of English and promote their cultural security and empowerment.In other words, it serves as a strategy for creating a balance of cultural and linguistic
power between English and other languages. (3) The Ecology of Language provides a theoretical foundation for the development of global
language policy, especially from the position of promoting multilingualism and multiculturalism. (4) The Ecology of Language serves the English-speaking people by
providing them with a critical awareness and knowledge with regard to the dominance of English , raising
consciousness about equality in communication, the right to language, and linguistic and cultural
pluralism. The Ecology of Language Paradigm is not without faults and weakness . Perhaps, linguistic and
cultural isolationism is one of the pitfalls that are likely to happen . If multilingualism, for example, is pursued to the extreme at the expense of
everything else, the speakers of minority languages might be confined in their languages and thus cannot communicate with the world outside of their linguistic and cultural boundary. In order to prevent linguistic and cultural
isolationism, we should recognize the "ecology-conscious" ideas such as "communitarian globalism" and "liberal localism" developed by M.Tehranian (Tehranian,1993) and integrate them into the Ecology of Language Paradigm.
I am
Conclusion Whenever I criticize the Hegemony of English, I am asked the same question: "I understand what you are talking about. But look, English is the lingua franca today. How can we communicate without it ?"
not denying the use and learning of English. Rather, what I am actually challenging is the very
knowledge or consciousness that makes it possible for people to ask such a question: the knowledge
that takes for granted the existing reality, accepts it as natural, inevitable, and even beneficial ; the
knowledge that refuses to envision the alternative. We need to examine the existing reality, and then try
to fill the gap between the status quo and the ideal by exploring the problems and providing solutions to them. In
conclusion, I would like to make three suggestions. The first one is directed to scholars of international and intercultural communication. That is, I suggest that the Hegemony of
English should become the subject of academic inquiry in the area of international and intercultural
communication, especially in the English-speaking countries. The second suggestion is directed to the English language teaching professionals. I suggest that the English
language education should incorporate the Ecology of Language Paradigm into the contents and
methods of teaching as well as teacher education. The last suggestion goes to all the speakers of English. I suggest that both native
speakers and non-native speakers of English should learn the philosophy of the Ecology of Language so
that they will become more sensitive to the ethical aspects of international communication .
Alt --- Examine Linguistic Inequality
Examining the overarching structures of English is a prerequisite to speak English
from a perspective that prevents oppression
2008)//chiragjain
Introduction One of the most important tasks that we scholars ought to achieve is to discover a question out
of the taken-for-granted knowledge in the existing realit y. The question I want to raise in this paper is
concerned with the use of English which is very much taken for granted in international communication
today. Speaking from the non-English-speaking perspective, I believe the use of English should not be taken for granted , but it
should be examined as a problem of linguistic hegemony. It is evident that English is the de facto international
language of international communication today , but it is also evident that the dominance of English today causes not
only linguistic and communicative inequality but also the feelings of anxiety and insecurity especially on
the part of the non-English-speaking people in a rapidly globalizing world in which English dominates
extensively. Thus, there is a need to propose a paradigm for counterattacking the Hegemony of English so
that linguistic and cultural pluralism will be secured. In this paper I want to achieve two goals. One is to raise the problem of the
Hegemony of English by discussing the two aspects of it , namely, neocolonialism and globalism. The other goal is to
discuss what I call "The Ecology of Language Paradigm " as a counter-strategy to the Hegemony of English
in order to find some implications for the building of a more equal international communication and
linguistic pluralism. Addressing the problem of linguistic hegemony is crucial to the development of
human and cultural security.
Alt --- Solves Growth and Environment
Endorsing an ecology of language paradigm ensures sustainable growth and
multilingualism with human rights
Having discussed the problems and ideologies of the Hegemony of English, I
will now discuss some ways to deal with and possibly
fight against it. First of all, we need to have a theory or a philosophy that will guide us and give us a new way
of thinking in order to deal with and fight against the Hegemony of English . For this purpose, I have proposed
“The Ecology of Language Paradigm” (Tsuda, 1994, 1999) as an alternative paradigm to “The Hegemony of English Paradigm,” the
dominant ideology that supports the Hegemony of English. It is a part of the larger paradigm called “Western Modernization
Paradigm” which advances Western-centered universalism, monolingualism, and selfish individualism as
well as modernization, industrialization, capitalist economy and materialism . Western modernization
paradigm, however, causes a number of serious problems such as environmental destruction, global
warming, population explosion and concentration, urbanization problems, widening gaps between the
rich and the poor, and so on. Western modernization paradigm assumes that there are no limits to growth and development, but that is where this
Paradigm fails. It should be replaced by a more sensible paradigm that will allow for sustainable growth and
development. Therefore, I have proposed “The Ecology of Language Paradigm” which is based on ecology. A part
of ecology pursues the preservation and maintenance of the environment. The Ecology of Language Paradigm thus aims
to preserve and maintain languages all over the world. There are three goals in the Ecology of Language Paradigm. They are:
(1) the establishment of language rights; (2) the establishment of linguistic equality; (3) the
establishment of multilingualism and multiculturalism. Language rights Language is one of the most important
components for human beings, therefore, it should be recognized and established as the essential part of
human rights. In 1996 the “Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights” (1996) was adopted at a meeting in Barcelona, Spain in order to internationally raise
consciousness about the importance of language rights. Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson name language rights “Linguistic Human Rights” and define them as
follows: We will provisionally regard linguistic human rights in relation to the mother tongue(s) as
consisting of the right to identify with it/them, and to education and public services through the medium
of it/them. … In relation to other languages we will regard linguistic human rights as consisting of the
right to learn an official language in the country of residence, in its standard form (Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson,
1995, p. 71). This definition stresses the social aspect of language which acknowledges and encourages social
participation. Language is important not only for its social function, but also for what it is, because we are what we speak. Language, especially the mother
tongue, is not merely an instrument, but it is a source of human pride and dignity. Therefore, language rights should be established as an
essential part of the right to be oneself . Everyone is entitled to the right to use the language(s) s/he
chooses to speak and this right should be honored in all forms of communication .
Alt --- Sinology
The alternative advocates for a “new Sinology” and a critical evaluation of
translational studies --- vote neg to deny the aff’s flawed epistomology
http://commons.ln.edu.hk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2918&context=sw_master , //VZ//chiragjain)
5. Conclusions with the rise of China in the two past decades to become a viable economic and political power , it
can be expected that arguments should arise in academia concerning whether one should champion an "international approach" like that suggested by (in Ming Dong (2013), or prioritize a
more "Sinicized" approach.' Unfazed by the fact that the term "Sinology" has been disparaged by a generation of post-colonialist critics,Geremie Barme, speaking
from another part of the Anglophone world, has recently spoken of the need to reinvigorate Sinology. In an article
published in connection with the launching of the online journal ('Irina Heritage Newsletter (later renamed China Heritage Quarterly, of which he is currently Editor) in 2005 , he
advocates a "new Sinology" which nevertheless declares its integral links to classical Sinology and
contemporary Chinese studies in the US. Even though Barme reiterates the "newness" of his project, his methodology does not in
actual fact depart substantially from established practice , what we have called "the translational mode." The emphasis on
critical engagement with the Sinophone world, the deployment of textual analytical methods (kaozheng),
and the "embodied involvement" with China, characterized as "an 'Other' that haunts us from within"
(2005: para. 8)-these reflect what has been done by James Legge and Co. The only conspicuous change made
by Barme is his inclusion of research concerning the "Sinophone world," which includes Taiwan and overseas Chinese communities
as well. The outsider perspective and the issue of practical relevance (”knowing about the enemy” are still there, although the political agenda is perhaps a little muted. Area studies" rhetoric is
transferred to Australia: [I]t is obvious that the buzzwords that attract attention in Australia are national security and economic benefits; and applications to national funding bodies are
Translation as the methodological tool for Sinologists, both old and new.
invariably couched in terms of scholars providing a ˜better understanding of our regionâ (2005: paral2).”
needs to be problematized. The realization that a piece of published research has been mediated by
translation makes all the difference. There is no problem with the translation of terminology and expressions, even the structure of thinking, but such translation
should be made explicit. Knowing that certain terms have been used as expedient measures when exact
equivalents are not available is the key to unraveling the practices that enable the local to be subsumed
under a global or international framework. and erase cultural or regional differences that are reflected
in language. In the case of our critical examination of the translations of xiaoshuo into the novel or fiction, the crucial point is not that mistranslations have come into being, but that
inadequate translations can play into the hands of the scholar presenting a “global" interpretation of a
Chinese term that refuses to be translated. The untranslatability of xiaoshuo underlines the Orientalizing discursive maneuvers that have been carried out,
unannounced as it were, in academic publication. Translation criticism is not used here to show that comparative literature is
an impossible undertaking, but to uncover the gaps, fissures and incompatibilities that lie hidden in what
gets translated. In not being identified, undercover translations serve to advance the agenda of the
advocates of monolinguism and the defenders of linguistic inequality, participating in what amounts to
an act of epistemicide.
AT: Alt Fails --- Conspiracy Theory
It’s not a conspiracy theory --- it’s the truth
It
is false to suggest that my work on linguistic imperialism represents a conspiracy theory (Spolsky, 2004), a
position I explicitly reject (Phillipson, 1992, p. 63; Phillipson, 2007). A conspiracy accusation entails an allegation of
an unsophisticated, simplistic explanation for historical events. The charge tends to be simply a put-
down, a diversion, ‘the standard invalidating predicate to block tracking of strategic decisions’ (McMurtry, 2002, p. 17). ‘central office in
London, from which teachers radiate all over the world.’ The new service must ‘lay the foundations of a world language and culture based on
our own’ (emphasis added). This culture was a joint Anglo-American one. ‘Teaching the world English may appear not unlike
an extension of the task which America faced in establishing English as a common national language
among its own immigrant population.’ (Annual Report of the British Council, 1960–61, cited in Phillipson, 1992). This global
English project, which in predictable fashion has ‘forgotten’ the North American indigenous population, implicitly endorses
English replacing other languages.
AT: Alt Fails --- Engrained
Its just another link --- English is dominant but assuming that its inevitable is bad
--- questioning the imperialist structures of English is key
2008)//chiragjain
It is often said that English is the most widely used language for international and
1. Dominance of English as Neo-colonialism
intercultural communication. A number of linguists, in fact, report on the global spread of English, indicating the dominant status of
English as the most prevalent language of today . Ammon, for example, points out the dominance of English by providing same statistics about the dominance of English.
According to him, (1) English has the greatest number of speakers reaching as many as 1.5 billion people ; (2) English is
designated as official languages of as many as 62 nations ; (3) English is the most dominant language in
scientific communication with 70-80 percent of academic publications being published in it; (4) English is the de facto official and
working language in most international organizations; (5) English is the most taught foreign language
across the world (Ammon, 1992:78-81). English is indeed the most dominant language and operates as a
common medium for international communication . However, because it is the most dominant, English is also the "hegemonic"
and "neocolonialist" language, creating not only the structure of linguistic and communicative inequality
and discrimination between speakers of English and speakers of other languages, but also indirect rule over many aspects of their lives.
The use of English has been taken for granted in most international interactions, and it has almost never
been called into question. In the English-dominated Western academic community, the use of English has never been perceived as the
problematic, as far as I know. Strangely enough, international and intercultural communication studies are quite indifferent
to the dominance of English , while Socio linguistics centers on the objective description of the spread of English and thus legitimates the function of English as an international language. I
have been attempting to critically examine the dominance of English as the problematic in
international communication (Tsuda, 1986, 1990, 1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1994, 1996). I have found that the dominance of English causes serious
consequences which include: (1) linguistic and communicative inequality to a great disadvantage of the speakers of
languages other than English; (2) discrimination against the non-English-speaking people and those who
are not proficient in English; and (3) colonization of the consciousness of the non-English-speakers, causing them to develop linguistic, cultural, and psychological dependency upon, and
identification with, the English, its culture and people.
AT: Alt Fails --- Neutrality Solves
Resistance to English based overarching structures is necessary to challenge the
inevitability of linguistic imperialism
These ideas are endorsed in an analysis in Globalization and language in the Spanish-speaking world that relates specifically to the way Spanish is being promoted
and adopted internationally (Mar-Molinero, 2006).25 There is competition among the most dominant ‘international’ languages, though currently it is only
English that is a constituent part of a neoliberal empire. Linguistic neoimperialism entails the
maintenance of inequalities between speakers of English and other languages , within a framework of
exploitative dominance. As in earlier linguistic imperialism, this is achieved through penetration,
fragmentation, marginalization, and supremacist ideologies in discourse. Changes in communication
technology have revolutionised the impact of English globally , in tandem with the expansion of the
information society of corporate globalization (especially in commerce, finance, and the media) and multiple networks. Acceptance
of the status of English, and its assumed neutrality implies uncritical adherence to the dominant world
disorder, unless policies to counteract neolinguistic imperialism and to resist linguistic capital
dispossession are in force. U.S. expansionism is no longer territorial, except in the sense that military bases, military occupation, and sales of military
hardware to client regimes (e.g., Turkey, Skutnabb-Kangas, and Fernandes, in press) all serve to ensure the economic structure that perpetuates corporate
dominance. Occupation
is by economic, technological, and material means , and is increasingly ensured
through mental and electronic control, through the barrage of advertising and Hollywood products, and
the networks of political and scholarly collaboration that uphold an exploitative economic structure. The
salience of each of the three dimensions of English as product, process and project will vary according to local circumstances, dovetailing with multilingualism when
this maintains the neoliberal world ‘order’ that constitutes empire. There is a need for explicit language policies based on
ethical human rights principles. Language policy formation and implementation at the supranational, national, and subnational levels is needed
if linguistic diversity is to be sustainable, and if speakers of all languages are to enjoy linguistic human rights (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000)— and to resist
mental and economic occupation. Regarding linguistics, the social sciences and humanities as apolitical, is a deeply political act. Language
professionals should formulate policies for maintaining linguistic diversity; help to create conditions for equality between speakers of different languages;
counteract the linguistic dispossession currently threatening ‘minorized’ languages; educate politicians, journalists, translators, and the general public; and use
all languages to decolonise minds, so as to facilitate equitable dialogue and to counteract occupation,
physical or mental.
Impact
Impact --- Neoliberalism
Impact --- Neoliberalism I/L
The imperialistic characteristic of English classifies diplomacy --- establishes American dominance
through language over those not speaking English
Mind control The next problem I have discovered in the Hegemony of English is mind control, or the colonization
of the mind. Language is not just a tool or a medium. It represents a way of thinking, a mental structure . Learning
a language is not simply learning a tool . It affects people’s emotions. It influences their thoughts, beliefs,
and values. Learning to speak English often means learning to become and behave like Americans or British.
Through learning English many people in the world will possibly become mentally controlled by English . You become
supporters and admirers of English, its culture and countries through the experience of learning it, while at the same time you devalue your
own languages, cultures, and countries. The
Hegemony of English operates to reward the successful learners of
English: they will be gain high-paid jobs, achieve higher social statuses, and individual accomplishments .
They admire English and even become ardent advocates of the Hegemony of English. For example, Mauro E. Mujica, a successful immigrant
from Chile to the United States, is now a chairman of the US English, Inc, (US English, Inc, 2008) an organization advocating making English the
official language of the United States. At the same time, however, successfullearners of English tend to give up their own
languages. In California, the Hispanic people decided (Matsubara, 2002) to oppose bilingual education for their children in 1998, because
they wanted their children to be able to speak English. They seem to have chosen individual successes at the expense of maintaining their own
linguistic heritage, Spanish. The economic rewards provided by the Hegemony of English, thus, make people believe that it would be better to
choose English and throw away their own languages. The Hegemony of English controls people to the extent that they
choose English and give up their own languages . English divide The last problem of the Hegemony of English is English Divide.
English Divide takes place as a result of the formation of the English language based class system (see
Figure 15.1). As English is increasingly becoming a global standard language, ability in English will become a
very important basis of evaluation. There will be a great divide between English-speaking people and non-English-speaking people.
The Hegemony of English will create a global class society where native speakers of English who often
possess the highest English abilities will compose the ruling class . As native speakers of the prestigious global language
they monopolize the powers of communication and they can participate fully in global communication. Next come the speakers of
English as a second language. In the English-based class system, they constitute the middle class, and therefore they have
the second strongest powers of communication. These people are speakers of different varieties of English such as
Indian English, Singaporean English, and so on. Their participation in global communication is almost equal to that of native speakers of
English. Then come the speakers of English as a foreign language . They form the working class of the
English-based class system because they suffer from the labor of learning English for many years, often
for a lifetime. They do not have as much power of communication as native speakers or speakers of English as a second language. Their
participation in global communication is very much restricted and easily become discriminated against or treated unfairly. The majority of the
world’s population belongs to this class. At the bottom of the English language based class system exists what I call the silent class that has no
or little contact with English.In any country where there is a severe restriction upon overseas influence , especially
Western influence, there seems to be almost no contact with English. The people in such a country are the
silent class. Their power of global communication is almost none existent and their participation in global
communication will be very constrained. As the Hegemony of English develops and becomes stronger, we will find ourselves
living in the English language based class system which produces and reproduces English divide. In such a system, only the people
who can speak English well will prosper at the expense of those who cannot or do not speak English. In
fact, the English-speaking countries gain as much as about one third of the world’s GDP (Gross Domestic
Product), even though they represent only 8% of the total population of the world (Tsuda, 2006). In many non-
English-speaking countries in Europe and Asia, the English divide is happening: people get jobs and promotions if they demonstrate English
abilities. The
Hegemony of English thus causes the practice of inequality, always operating to reward
speakers of English and deprive the non-English-speaking people of the opportunities to participate in
global society.
Impact --- Neoliberalism (Root Cause)
Linguistic imperialism is the root cause of neoliberalism and exploitation --- only the
alternative’s examination and consideration can solve
Theorizing Linguistic Neoimperialism Stephen Howe begins his stimulating Empire: A Very Short Introduction (2002) by asserting that ‘The very word empire : : : has had a complicated history and many different, fiercely contested
meanings,’ and he ends a chapter of historical and terminological clarification by concluding that reaching agreement on definitions is elusive because ‘the subject is so highly charged with political passions and emotion’ (ibid., 34).
This principle also guided my definition of

Harvey (2005) stresses the need to define the concept imperialism if it is to be used analytically rather than merely polemically.
linguistic imperialism as a variant of linguicism, operating through structures and ideologies, and
entailing unequal treatment for groups identified by language (Phillipson, 1992). For Harvey, capitalist
imperialism ‘is a contradictory fusion of ‘‘the politics of state and empire’’ (imperialism as a distinctively political project on the part of the
actors whose power is based in command of a territory and a capacity to mobilize its human and natural resources towards political, economic, and military ends) and ‘‘the molecular processes of capital accumulation in space and
The first is the top-down

time’’ (imperialism as a diffuse political economic process in space and time in which command over and use of capital takes primacy)’ (Harvey, 2005, p. 26, italics added).
process of what a state, or combination of states, or an institution such as a corporation or a university,

does to achieve its goals, which includes the way it manages linguistic capital . The second is the way
‘economic power flows across and through continuous space, towards or away from territorial entities
(such as states or regional power blocs) through the daily practices of production, trade, commerce,
capital flows, money transfers, labour migration, technology transfer, currency speculation, flows of
information, cultural impulses, and the like’ (ibid.). Most of these are crucially dependent on language, and
constituted by language. Building on this diagnosis of American empire, we can see global English as the capitalist neoimperial
language that serves the interests of the corporate world and the governments that it influences so as to
consolidate state and empire worldwide . This dovetails with the language being activated through molecular processes of linguistic capital accumulation in space and time. As Harvey
explains for the new imperialism, ‘the relation between these two logics should be seen, therefore, as problematic and often contradictory (that is, dialectical) rather than as functional or one-sided.’ The challenge for the analyst is
to ‘keep the two sides of this dialectic simultaneously in motion and not to lapse into either a solely political or a predominantly economic mode of argumentation’ (ibid., p. 30). So far as linguistic neoimperialism is concerned, the
‘political mode of argumentation’ refers to decision-making, policy formation of a general kind (corresponding to status, corpus and acquisition planning, both overt and covert, to which a fourth type can be added, language
technology planning),24 whereas the ‘economic mode of argumentation’ refers to the working through of such decisions at all levels, the implementation of language planning decisions, actual use of English in myriad contexts. To
revert to the examples of earlier sections of this paper, when English increasingly occupies territory that earlier was the preserve of national languages in Europe or Asia, what is occurring is linguistic capital accumulation over a
period of time and in particular territories in favor of English, the capitalist neoimperial language. When Singaporean parents gradually shift from an Asian language to the use of English in the home, this also represents linguistic
capital accumulation. If users of German or Swedish as languages of scholarship shift to using English, similar forces and processes are at work. Demographically small languages have the additional problem that investment in
language technology is vastly greater in larger, more economically powerful languages. When considering agency in each of these examples, the individuals concerned opt for the neoimperial language because it is felt that this
linguistic capital will serve their personal interests best. In relation to each example, what has not been explored is whether this language shift is additive or subtractive (Skutnabb Kangas, 2000, p. 72). Individual agency and
decision-making reflect a range of societal forces and ideologies (see the typology of 15 factors contributing to the increased use of English in Europe, grouped as structural and ideological, Phillipson, 2003, pp. 64–65). When
language shift is subtractive, and if this affects a group and not merely individuals, there are serious implications for other languages. If domains such as business, the home, or scholarship are ‘lost,’ what has occurred is in fact
linguistic capital dispossession. There are agentive forces behind the language shift, causal factors that lead to an increased use of English. If Cantonese is dropped in Singapore, and if German and Swedish are no longer used for
Analysis of the interlocking of

particular functions within the German- or Swedish-speaking areas, this is a consequence of ‘daily practices’ that do not respect national borders or languages.
language policy with the two constituents of the ‘contradictory fusion’ can serve to highlight both
corporate agendas, which serve political, economic and military purposes, and the multiple flows that
make use of English for a range of what ELT experts refer to as ‘special purposes.’ New discourses and
technologies are adopted and creatively adapted, new medialects evolved, but in an unfree global and local market. Thus it is false to
project English as though it is ‘neutral,’ English as a mere tool that serves all equally well, in whatever
society they live. Much of the celebratory literature on ‘global’ English analyses it exclusively in such instrumental terms. However, as a recent work on the semantics
and culture embedded in the grammar and words of English stresses, publications on ‘global English,’ ‘international English,’ ‘world English,’ ‘standard
English,’ and ‘English as a lingua franca’ neglect the distinctive heritage embedded in the language in its core semantic and
grammatical structures, since ultimately ‘in the present-day world it is Anglo English that remains the touchstone and guarantor of English based global communication’ (Wierzbicka, 2006, pp. 13–14).
She also refers to the ethnocentricity of many theorists from the Anglo-American world who mistakenly take Anglo English for the human norm (ibid., p. 12). Teaching materials that falsely build on such analyses can compound the
error: ‘[M]uch intercultural communication itself is typical of a certain Anglo-Saxon culture, discourse and worldview : : : the concept of intercultural communication as it is currently used can be easily hijacked by a global ideology
of ‘‘effective communication’’ Anglo-Saxon style, which speaks an English discourse even as it expresses itself in many different languages’ (Kramsch, 2002, pp. 283–284). In much intercultural communication, it is the native
speakers who are the problem rather than the non-natives (for an example, see Phillipson, 2003, pp. 167–168). Linguistic imperialism (which continued under neocolonialism) is transmorphing into linguistic neoimperialism during
The rapid succession from a neoliberal to an imperial project yields a combine of

the transition from neoliberalism into empire:
American economic and political-military unilateralism and a novel formation of neoliberal empire.
Neoliberal empire twins practices of empire with those of neoliberalism. The core of empire is the
national security state and the military-industrial complex ; neoliberalism is about business, financial operations, and marketing (including marketing
neoliberalism itself). [: : : ] Neoliberal empire is a marriage of convenience with neoliberalism , indicated by inconsistent use of neoliberal policies, with
the attempt to merge the America whose business is business with the America whose business is war, at a time when business is not doing so great. [: : : ] The grand strategy of permanent war signals the beginning of the end of
Language, as it communicates,
American power (Pieterse, 2004, pp. 45, 159). Hardt and Negri’s controversial book on empire sees power in deterritorialized networks, and stresses (2000, pp. 32–33) that
produces commodities but moreover produces subjectivities, puts them in relation, and orders them.
The communications industries integrate the imaginary and the symbolic within the biopolitical fabric,
not merely putting them at the service of power but actually integrating them into its very functioning.
Their analysis reveals why it has been so important for the corporate world to dominate not only the media but also education, which is increasingly run to service the economy, and produce consumers rather than critical citizens.
English contributes to the imperial production of subjectivities , through communicative networks,

creating a synergy that integrates structural and ideological elements in the new world ‘order.’ T he key networks
are identifiable, and their language policies can be empirically verified . This ‘order’ is upheld through English at the
global level, and through other languages in hierarchical structures. This symbolic violence is invariably contested but is widely,
uncritically internalised. The dominance of English and its differential impact on other languages is
applauded by scholars who see the rise of ‘world’ English as unproblematical (on de Swaan and Brutt-Griffler, see Phillipson, 2004),
but they fail to capture how English functions in the new imperialism . It is a weakness if the use of English is looked at purely empirically without
engaging with the fundamentally political roles that use of the language performs (Ives, 2006). Even studies which question whether the dominance of English is secure in the foreseeable future (Graddol, 2006), and which rightly
he invasions of
point out the strength of Asian economies, seem to ignore the significance of the corporate world and the role of the guardians of the norms of the standard Anglo-American language. T
Afghanistan and Iraq have done massive damage to the image that the ‘English-speaking’ world would
like to create of the values that they claim to subscribe to, as well as to international law, but one can
scarcely claim that viable alternatives to neoliberalism and corporate-driven English-using globalization
and empire are emerging, with the exception of unpredictable and inscrutable China. On the other hand, global insecurity, political polarisation,
ecological and climatic threats, and the untenable lifestyles of the minority of the world’s privileged
make prediction uncertain. Fundamental changes in the global economy make U.S. dominance via the
dollar and control of the oil trade precarious: fewer goods are produced in the United States and parts
of Europe, which are therefore dependent on goods and investment from Asia and elsewhere, creating
an untenable U.S. budget deficit, an unequal society where 30% of the workforce do not earn a living
wage, and a dollar that is volatile, operating in a finance capital market that is rigged in favor of the rich
(Hatlen, 2006). US. military dominance globally (350 bases and 800 military facilities in 130 countries; Pieterse, 2004, p. 58) is symptomatic of unilateralism based on force that both ‘friends and enemies’ may choose to accept no
monolingualism in English may be a

longer. It is therefore perfectly possible that the global linguistic map may change violently in the coming decades, and that in the intervening period,
serious liability in the job market. It is therefore an issue that the British are being encouraged to address (Nuffied Languages Inquiry, www.nuffield.org; Graddol, 2006). If
postcolonial elites in Asia or Africa confirm a trend towards monolingualism in English, this is likely to
intensify the gaps between haves and have-nots locally and globally and consolidate states that are
untenable socially, culturally, and ecologically . For the present I concur with the diagnosis of a survey of ‘Language empires, linguistic imperialism, and the future of global
languages’ (Hamel, 2003), which concludes as follows: Neither the number of speakers, nor the number of countries, nor the density
of its population makes the difference. Rather, we have to consider economic power, military strength,
the ranking in scientific and technological development, the role in international organizations and the
cultural industries of those countries and international corporations that back a given language and are
determined to operate through it in order to establish the real power and ranking of a language as
international (Pennycook, 1994), global (Crystal, 1997) or imperialist (Phillipson, 1992). [: : : ] Certainly agency is relevant, but we will have to extend our view of agency to include all activities
propelled by a given habitus, in Bourdieu’s sense, not only planned and conscious action. And second , we need to consider the agency of all those who, from
subaltern positions and a second language status, helpto strengthen the dominant role of a language
which in turn contributes to maintain and increase imperial and imperialist power relations . (: : : ) the forces that maintain control
over English are clearly rooted in a small number of sovereign states.
Impact --- Neoliberalism Environment
The neoliberal empire results in exploitation and degradation that results in
ecological disaster and extinction
Harvey 5 --- David W. Harvey FBA is the Distinguished Professor of anthropology and geography at the Graduate Center of the
City University of New York. He received his PhD in geography from the University of Cambridge in 1961 (“A Brief History of
Neoliberalism”, 2005, 170-173)//chiragjain
The imposition of short-term contractual logic on environmental uses has disastrous
Environmental Degradations
consequences. Fortunately, views within the neoliberal camp are somewhat divided on this issue. While Reagan cared nothing for the environment, at one point characterizing
trees as a major source of air pollution, Thatcher took the problem seriously. She played a major role in negotiating the Montreal Protocol to limit the use of the CFCs that were responsible for
the growing ozone hole around Antarctica. She took the threat of global warming from rising carbon dioxide emissions seriously. Her environmental commitments were not entirely
Neoliberal state
disinterested, of course, since the closure of the coalmines and the destruction of the miners’ union could be partially legitimized on environmental grounds.
policies with respect to the environment have therefore been geographically uneven and temporally
unstable (depending on who holds the reins of state power, with the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations being particularly retrograde in the US). The
environmental movement, furthermore, has grown in significance since the 1970s. It has often exerted a restraining influence, depending on time
and place. And in some instances capitalist firms have discovered that increasing efficiency and improved
environmental performance can go hand in hand. Nevertheless, the general balance sheet on the
environmental consequences of neoliberalization is almost certainly negative . Serious though controversial efforts to create
indices of human well-being including the costs of environmental degradations suggest an accelerating negative trend since
1970 or so. And there are enough Neoliberalism on Trial specific examples of environmental losses resulting from the unrestrained application of neoliberal principles to give sustenance
to such a general account. The accelerating destruction of tropical rain forests since 1970 is a well-known example
that has serious implications for climate change and the loss of biodiversity . The era of neoliberalization
also happens to be the era of the fastest mass extinction of species in the Earth’s recent history.27 If we are
entering the danger zone of so transforming the global environment, particularly its climate, as to make the earth unfit for human habitation, then further embrace of
the neoliberal ethic and of neoliberalizing practices will surely prove nothing short of deadly. The Bush
administration’s approach to environmental issues is usually to question the scientific evidence and do nothing (except cut back on the resources for relevant scientific research). But his own
research team reports that the human contribution to global warming soared after 1970. The Pentagon also argues that global warming might well in the long run be a more serious threat to
the security of the US than terrorism.28 Interestingly, the two main culprits in the growth of carbon dioxide emissions these last few years have been the powerhouses of the global economy,
the US and China (which increased its emissions by 45 per cent over the past decade). In the US, substantial progress has been made in increasing energy efficiency in industry and residential
construction. The profligacy in this case largely derives from the kind of consumerism that continues to encourage high-energy-consuming suburban and ex-urban sprawl and a culture that
In the
opts to purchase gas-guzzling SUVs rather than the more energy-efficient cars that are available. Increasing US dependency on imported oil has obvious geopolitical ramifications.
case of China, the rapidity of industrialization and of the growth of car ownership doubles the pressure
on energy consumption. China has moved from selfsufficiency in oil production in the late 1980s to being the second largest global importer after the US. Here, too, the
geopolitical implications are rife as China scrambles to gain a foothold in the Sudan, central Asia, and the Middle East to
secure its oil supplies. But China also has vast rather low-grade coal supplies with a high sulphur content.
The use of these for power generation is creating major environmental problems, particularly those that
contribute 173 Neoliberalism on Trial to global warming. Furthermore, given the acute power shortages that now bedevil the Chinese economy, with brownouts and
blackouts common, there is no incentive whatsoever for local government to follow central government mandates to close down inefficient and ‘dirty’ power stations. The astonishing increase
in car ownership and use, largely replacing the bicycle in large cities like Beijing in ten years, has brought China the negative distinction of having sixteen of the twenty worst cities in the world
with respect to air quality.29 The cognate effects on global warming are obvious. As usually happens in phases of rapid industrialization, the failure to pay any mind to the environmental
consequences is having deleterious effects everywhere. The rivers are highly polluted, water supplies are full of dangerous cancer-inducing chemicals, public health provision is weak (as
illustrated by the problems of SARS and the avian flu), and the rapid conversion of land resources to urban uses or to create massive hydroelectric projects (as in the Yangtze valley) all add up
to a significant bundle of environmental problems that the central government is only now beginning to address. China is not alone in this, for the rapid burst of growth in India is also being
accompanied by stressful environmental changes deriving from the expansion of consumption as well as the increased pressure on natural resource exploitation.
Neoliberalization has a rather dismal record when it comes to the exploitation of natural resources. The
reasons are not far to seek. The preference for short-term contractual relations puts pressure on all producers to extract everything they can while the contract lasts. Even though contracts
and options may be renewed there is always uncertainty because other sources may be found. The longest possible time-horizon for natural resource exploitation is that of the discount rate
Depletion is usually assumed to be linear, when it is now evident

(i.e. about twenty-five years) but most contracts are now far shorter.
that many ecological systems crash suddenly after they have hit some tipping point beyond which their
natural reproduction capacity cannot function. Fish stocks––sardines off California, cod off Newfoundland, and Chilean sea bass––are classic examples of
a resource exploited at an ‘optimal’ rate that suddenly crashes without any seeming warning.30 Less dramatic but equally insidious is the case of forestry. 174 Neoliberalism on Trial Neoliberal
insistence upon privatization makes it hard to establish any global agreements on principles of forest management to protect valuable habitats and biodiversity, particularly in the tropical rain
forests. In poorer countries with substantial forest resources, the pressure to increase exports and to allow foreign ownerships and concessions means that even minimal protections of forests
The over-exploitation of forestry resources after privatization in Chile is a good case in point . But
break down.
Imposed austerity means that poorer countries have

structural adjustment programmes administered by the IMF have had even worse impacts.
less money to put into forest management . They are also pressurized to privatize the forests and to open
up their exploitation to foreign lumber companies on short-term contracts. Under pressure to earn foreign exchange to pay off
their debts, the temptation exists to concede a maximal rate of short-term exploitation. To make matters worse, when IMF-mandated austerity and unemployment strikes, redundant
populations may seek sustenance on the land and engage in indiscriminate forest clearance. Since the favoured method is by burning, landless peasant populations together with the logging
companies can massively destroy forest resources in very short order, as has happened in Brazil, Indonesia, and several African countries.31 It was no accident that at the height of the fiscal
crisis that displaced millions from the job market in Indonesia in 1997–8, forest fires raged out of control in Sumatra (associated with the logging operations of one of Suharto’s richest ethnic
It is only when states and other interests

Chinese businessmen), creating a massive smoke-pall that engulfed the whole of South-East Asia for several months.
are prepared to buck the neoliberal rules and the class interests that support them ––and this has occurred on a significant
number of occasions––that any modicum of balanced use of the environment is achieved.
Impact --- Neoliberalism Commodification
The aff’s justification of neoliberal imperialism leads to commodification of culture

and other languages --- puts a price on those and reinforces the empire
Harvey 5 --- David W. Harvey FBA is the Distinguished Professor of anthropology and geography at the Graduate Center of the
City University of New York. He received his PhD in geography from the University of Cambridge in 1961 (“A Brief History of
Neoliberalism”, 2005, 165-166)//chiragjain
The Commodification of Everything To
presume that markets and market signals can best determine all allocative
decisions is to presume that everything can in principle be treated as a commodity . Commodification
presumes the existence of property rights over processes, things, and social relations, that a price can
be put on them, and that they can be traded subject to legal contract . The market is presumed to work as
an appropriate guide––an ethic––for all human action . In practice, of course, every society sets some bounds on
where commodification begins and ends. Where the boundaries lie is a matter of contention. Certain drugs are deemed illegal. The buying
and selling of sexual favours is outlawed in most US states, though elsewhere it may be legalized, decriminalized, and even state-regulated as an industry.
Pornography is broadly protected as a form of free speech under 165 Neoliberalism on Trial US law although here, too, there are certain forms (mainly concerning
children) that are considered beyond the pale. In
the US, conscience and honour are supposedly not for sale, and there
exists a curious penchant to pursue ‘corruption’ as if it is easily distinguishable from the normal practices
of influence-peddling and making money in the marketplace . The commodification of sexuality, culture,
history, heritage; of nature as spectacle or as rest cure; the extraction of monopoly rents from
originality, authenticity, and uniqueness (of works or art, for example)––these all amount to putting a price on
things that were never actually produced as commodities .17 There is often disagreement as to the appropriateness of
commodification (of religious events and symbols, for example) or of who should exercise the property rights and derive the rents (over access to Aztec ruins or
marketing of Aboriginal art, for example). Neoliberalization has unquestionably rolled back the bounds of commodification
and greatly extended the reach of legal contracts. It typically celebrates (as does much of postmodern
theory) ephemerality and the short-term contrac t––marriage, for example, is understood as a short-term contractual arrangement
rather than as a sacred and unbreakable bond. The divide between neoliberals and neoconservatives partially reflects a difference as to where the lines are drawn .
The neoconservatives typically blame ‘liberals’, ‘Hollywood’, or even ‘postmodernists’ for what they see
as the dissolution and immorality of the social order, rather than the corporate capitalists (like Rupert
Murdoch) who actually do most of the damage by foisting all manner of sexually charged if not salacious
material upon the world and who continually flaunt their pervasive preference for short-term over long-
term commitments in their endless pursuit of profit . But there are far more serious issues here than merely trying to protect some
treasured object, some particular ritual or a preferred corner of social life from the monetary calculus and the short-term contract. For at the heart of liberal and
neoliberal theory lies the necessity of constructing coherent markets for land, labour, and money, and these, as Karl Polanyi pointed out, ‘are obviously not
commodities . . . the commodity description of labour, land, and money is enti--rely fictitious’. While capitalism cannot function 166
Impact --- Neoliberalism Interventions/Threat Inflation
Neoliberal empire justifies interventions, defunding of welfare, corporate
interventions, threat inflation, militarism, and ecological exploitation --- leads to
extinction
Pieterse 4 --- Jan Nederveen Pieterse is Mellichamp Professor of Global Studies and Sociology in the Global &
International Studies Program at the University of California, Santa Barbara . He specializes in globalization,
development studies and cultural studies. (“Globalization or Empire?”, 123-29, Jan Nederveen Pieterse)//chiragjain
The
Osmosis of Neoliberalism/Empire While neoliberalism and empire are far apart, what matters is not merely the contrast but also the osmosis of neoliberal globalization and imperialism, or how they fold into one another.
new policies unfold within a structured setting. The rapid succession from a neoliberal to an imperial
project yields a combination of American economic and political-military unilateralism and a novel
formation of neoliberal empire that twins practices of empire with those of neoliberalism . The core of
empire is the national security state and the military-industrial complex; neoliberalism is about business,
financial operations and marketing (including marketing neoliberalism itself). The IMF and World Bank continue business as usual, though with less salience and legitimacy than during the
Clinton years; so imperial policies come in addition to and not instead of the framework of neoliberal globalization. Neoliberal empire is a marriage of convenience with
neoliberalism indicated by inconsistent use of neoliberal policies , and an attempt to merge the America whose business is business with the America
whose business is war, at a time when business is not doing so well. The combination of business and coercion is not new; the Cold War also
combined military power and free enterprise. But the habitus of neoliberalism that has taken shape
during past decades is more pronounced than Cold War free market rhetoric, and economic deregulation since the Reagan years is
much more advanced. The neoliberal regime and the imperial turn have in common that they are doctrinaire and involve vast military spending and spin and marketing. Viewed from the United States, continuities between
neoliberal globalization and neoliberal empire include: State intervention in favour of corporations (fiscal policy,
finance, environment, labour, zoning) Free market ideology conceals corporate redistribution Conservative ideology of
authoritarian moralism Defunding social government (welfare reform, workfare) Funding punitive government (`three strikes and
out’, Patriot Act) Privatizing government functions (prison industry, security tasks) Threat inflation, massive defence contracts,
militarism Marketing and spin Internationally: structural adjustment and aggressive trade policies.
Merging neoliberalism and empire yields peculiar outcomes; here we first look at government. Government
One of the fundamental contradictions of neoliberal empire concerns the role of government . Neoliberal ideology
pleads for small government – though the US government is strong on law and order and regulates by Nederveen Pieterse – Neoliberal Empire 123 deregulating, which is difficult enough to balance. The neoliberal mindset may be
summed up in House Majority speaker Dick Armey’s favourite saying, ‘The market is rational; the government’s dumb.’ But empire requires big government; does this mean that the imperial turn puts dumb government in charge?
The accomplishments of neoliberalism – lean, cheap government – turned out to be liabilities in the war
on terror. It was the frailty of its public infrastructures that made the United States vulnerable in the
9/11 attacks, the anthrax scare and in terms of air traffic security. Big government now returns in the form of a huge homeland security department, military and intelligence expansion, new surveillance and
security systems, propaganda policies and government support for industries at risk. Establishing the homeland security department, the largest reorganization of the federal bureaucracy in half a century, was initially supposed to
.
be ‘budget neutral’. In line with neoliberal expectations, it is to be cheap, efficient and flexible (redeploying labour across departments without union restrictions), while matching imperial standards it is to be monumental
Cost-cutting exercises in homeland security are kept from the media. Also the Pentagon seeks expansion
while reorganizing its workforce along flexible lines (Shanker, 2003a). The tension between small-government
ideology and big-government reality manifests in economic policy . The Concord Coalition, a budget watchdog group, warns against ‘a schizophrenic
pursuit of small-government tax policies and big-government spending initiatives’.3 Neoliberal tax cuts and imperial expansion of military budgets are contradictory moves from an economic point of view (tax cuts and war don’t
The politics of privatization is that dismantling government means

mix), but not necessarily from a political standpoint. Privatization
dismantling accountability; the politics of neoliberalism treats politics as a business proposition, or

money politics, making it as unaccountable as business itself. The Bush II administration takes privatization to new heights. G.W. Bush, the only MBA to
occupy the Oval Office, is described as ‘the GOP’s CEO’ with the ‘mentality of a successful CEO’ (Dumbrell, 2002: 81; see also Begala, 2002). The CEO approach to governance involves reorganizing government itself, as in Silvio
Berlusconi’s CEO government in Italy. The campaign to roll back government is conducted by government, so bypassing government bureaucracies – in education, the environment, judicial process, fiscal policy, government
contracts, intelligence gathering, warfare and so on – comes naturally to this kind of administration. The ‘No Child Left Behind’ education policy sets standards that schools must meet to receive accreditation and funding so high
that failure rates are in the order of 20 percent (and may be as high as 70 percent); which means that students are no longer obligated to attend the schools in their district and 124 Theory, Culture & Society 21(3) can opt for
private schools, which will then receive government funding . In effect this introduces the controversial system of ‘school vouchers’ via the back door and
erodes the public education system. Logging and drilling for oil in nature reserves such as the Arctic National Wildlife
Reserve also occur by bypassing existing regulations and institutions. The nation’s shift to combat mode
in the wake of 9/11 facilitated the authoritarian concentration of power , silenced criticism and widened the umbrella
of ‘security’. Neoliberal practices of outsourcing (to focus on core business) now extend to security and war. Business conglomerates
built during the neoliberal regime cash in on empire, such as the Carlyle Group in defence contracts and Halliburton and Bechtel’s contracts for building US bases and the reconstruction of Iraq (Shorrock, 2002, 2003). Under
the security umbrella, government contracts for rebuilding Iraq were allocated without public
accountability, or accountability was outsourced – to the companies themselves (Baum, 2003). Bypassing the CIA, FBI and Defense Intelligence Agency, circles within the administration set up their own intelligence
units such as Team B and the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon. Passing on the blame for intelligence failures regarding 9/11 and Iraq to the agencies – which had just been bypassed – weakens the agencies and maximizes
Fudging data and deception

executive privilege. The pervasive practice of cooking the books, Enron-style, now extends to policy in intelligence, security, the economy and the environment.
become standard operating procedure. The judicial process in relation to suspected terrorists is politicized by reference to security. Terrorism Information Awareness means unlimited
surveillance and limited accountability. Security voids the Freedom of Information Act. Security operations are increasingly outsourced to private military contractors such as DynCorp and MPRI, some of which are subsidiaries of
Fortune 500 firms. The global market in private military contracts is estimated at $100 billion. These services include training foreign troops, lowintensity conflict overseas, security for President Karzai in Afghanistan, airport
security and military recruitment. While these mercenary forces are paid for by American taxpayers, they don’t operate under military rules, are unaccountable and ‘allow the administration to carry out foreign policy goals in low-
level skirmishes around the globe’ without attracting media attention (Wayne, 2002; cf. Singer, 2003). This turns overseas conflict into another business proposition – just as prisons in the US have been privatized and turned into a
The accounts of terrorism for the public and for

‘prison-industrial complex’ (Dyer, 1999). Thus neoliberal empire extends profitable domestic practices overseas.
insiders differ markedly. The media duly present terrorism as the arch-enemy of ‘freedom’ and routinely
view it through the lens of Jihad and clash of civilizations (Abrahamanian, 2003). But the Rand Corporation, a Pentagon subcontractor, in testimony to
congressional intelligence committees presents an entirely different view. Here Bin Laden is a ‘terrorist CEO’: Nederveen Pieterse – Neoliberal Empire 125 . . . essentially having applied business administration and modern
management techniques learned both at university and in the family’s construction business to the running of a transnational terrorist organization. . . . Just as large multinational business conglomerates moved during the 1990s to
flatter, more linear, and network structures, bin Laden did the same with alQa’ida. . . . bin Laden has functioned like the president or CEO of a large multinational corporation: defining specific goals and aims, issuing orders and
One view is a Jihad

ensuring their implementation. And as a venture capitalist: soliciting ideas from below, encouraging creative approaches and ‘out of the box’ thinking . . . (Hoffman, 2002: 13)
stereotype while the other assimilates al-Qa’ida into the neoliberal mindset as a decentralized
transnational enterprise. The insider account of terrorism is business-like; in this view essentially two
business empires compete, using similar technique s. Meanwhile both perspectives ignore the opponent’s
politics. A vivid example of neoliberal empire was the plan for a futures market in political instability in
the Middle East. It was set up at a Pentagon web site on the principle of using market signals as a source of information on political trends; a mutually advantageous combination of online betting and intelligence
gathering, for isn’t the market the best source of information? Revoked within days under pressure of Congress, it illustrated the novel possibilities of neoliberal empire and war as business. Neoliberal empire is a tricky project.
Neo liberal globalization sought to establish legitimacy transnationally, via political-economic principles
(transparency, accountability, good governance); the Bush II administration shows decreasing transparency (empire requires secrecy), decreasing accountability (empire requires broad executive privilege) and decreasing good
Remote control via remote sensing satellites, unmanned drones

governance (civil liberties and due process impede the concentration of power).
and airborne surveillance is sufficient for containment operations (such as maintaining no-fly zones), but empire requires on-the-ground control
involving ground troops and special forces. Universal empire yields imperial overstretch, including military overstretch and the over-commitment of American troops. Forsaking UN authorization in Iraq means that the ‘coalition
forces’ consist mainly of GI boots; preparing for war and not for peace means that policing falls to coalition boots rather than UN peacekeepers; lasting insecurity and the withdrawal of UN and NGO personnel means that GIs must
also provide NGO services; and relying on hi-tech rapid deployment means that boots on the ground are thin. This has stretched American forces so much that deployment in Iraq outlasts military morale and National Guards and
Reserves are deployed overseas contrary to their expectations. In summer 2003, 21 of the Army’s 33 combat brigades were overseas, though normally only one brigade in three is deployed abroad while the other two retrain.
While the Pentagon contemplates expanding its troop size (a very costly proposition), it outsources security tasks to private 126 Theory, Culture & Society 21(3) military contractors. Law enforcement in Iraq was outsourced to
DynCorp International in a $50 million contract (Shanker, 2003b). But if privatization has trouble keeping electricity flowing in the United States (the 2003 power outage in the north-eastern US was essentially a consequence of
privatization), would it be more reliable in providing security and services in a war zone?
Impact --- Neocolonialism
The universal assumption of the dominance of English causes non-natives to
overidentify with English and adopt oppressive principles --- results in neocolonial
destruction of the self
2008)//chiragjain
1.3. Colonization of the Consciousness The third
and ultimate consequence of the dominance of English is what is
usually called "Colonization of the Consciousness " which refers to the mental control of the colonized by
the colonizer. Colonization of the mind occurs as a result of the domination of the colonizer's language over the language of the colonized. Ngugi wa
Thiong'o, an African writer famous for his book titled Decolonizing the Mind, describes how colonialism takes control of the mind of the colonized as follows:
[Colonialism's] most important area of domination was the mental universe of the colonized, the
control, through culture, of how people perceived themselves and their relationship to the world... For
colonialism this involved two aspects of the same process: the destruction or the deliberate undervaluing of a people's
culture, their art, dances, religions, history, geography, education, orature and literature, and the conscious elevation of
the language of the colonizer. The domination of a people's language by the languages of the colonizing nations was crucial to the domination of
the mental universe of the colonized. (Ngugi,1981:160, underline by Tsuda) As Ngugi clearly points out, linguistic domination leads to mental
control. This implies that the global dominance of English today is to lead to the control of the mind of the
global population by the speakers of English, and their nations, and governments. Ngugi also points out that the
mental control is made possible by a combination of "the destruction or the deliberate undervaluing of a
people's culture" and "the conscious elevation of the language of the colonizer." In the face of this mental controlling, the
colonized/dominated usually are coerced into complying with the force of mental controlling , which facilitates
the execution of the colonization of the mind. In short, the dominated are led to identify with the dominator, and glorify the
dominator's language while devaluing their own language and to an English-centered one; namely, the colonization of a person's mind and the
conscious devaluing of her own language.
Impact --- Eurocentric Imperialism
Impact --- Imperialism I/L
Root cause of western imperial is the dominance of English
Ideologies of the Hegemony of English We have seen that there
are plenty of problems caused by the Hegemony of
English. The underlying problem is that there has been almost no criticism of the Hegemony of English .
Rather, the Hegemony of English has been unconsciously accepted; it has been perceived as inevitable. The notion of English as a Global
Standard Language has become taken-for-granted knowledge: it has never been called into question . Why has the Hegemony of
English been unchallenged despite a great number of problems it creates? How has the Hegemony of English been
legitimated? What ideologies prevent us from understanding the realities of the Hegemony of English? In this section, I will discuss the three
main ideologies that justify and reinforce the Hegemony of English. They are (1) Western-centered Universalism; (2) Monolingualism; (3) Selfish
individualism. These three ideologies are combined to operate to reproduce and reinforce the Hegemony of English. Western-centered
universalism Western-centered Universalism refers to the idea that the West creates and represents the
universal values, and that therefore the rest of the world should follow the Western model . Western-centered
Universalism believes that the Western culture and civilization is the model for all the countries and
cultures to follow. Especially during the times of Western imperialistic invasion of the whole world ,
Western-centered Universalism was employed to justify Western rule and control. Below is a speech by an
Englishman who invaded Australia in the nineteenth century: Black men – Love White men. Love other tribes of black men. Do not quarrel
together. Tell other tribes to love white men, and to build good huts and wear clothes. Learn to speak English. If any man injure you, tell the
Protector and he will do you justice (Bailey, 1991:85). Western-centered Universalism is evident in this speech: the
whites are the
absolute rulers whom the natives are supposed to obey. Whites’ culture, religion, and language are
directed toward the natives with an absolute authority, as a Universal Truth . The Englishman’s order that the
natives should modernize themselves just like the Westerners is based on the Western-centered Universalism. He ordered, “Learn to
speak English” as he believed that English is a civilized, chosen, and universal language. He believed that the
“savage” natives would be saved and modernized if they became like the Westerners. This is what is usually called “The Messiah Ideology” an
idea that justifies the Western imperialistic invasion in the name of saving and modernizing the non-Western cultures. Western-centered
Universalism is still prevalent and serves as an idea that justifies the Hegemony of English. Many people, Western or non-Western, believe that
English is the language that the world should speak because the West is equal to the World representing the universal model. This kind of belief
seems to be consciously and unconsciously held by a great many people in the world. Monolingualism Monolingualism is an
ideology that believes in the use of the only one dominant language in a society. Monolingualism is an
ideology held by the dominant linguistic group who wishes to maintain their interests, power, and
dominance. Monolingualism supports the Hegemony of English in that it encourages the use of the most
dominant language. The ideology of monolingualism is clearly reflected in the “US English” movement in the United States which seeks
to legislate English as the official language of the United States. US English sees the growing use of languages other than
English and the resultant multilingualism as a threat to the unity of the nation. They believe that the use of only one language,
English, will realize a “unified America.” They argue that multilingualism is too expensive and the use of the most dominant language, English,
will help the immigrants to succeed in the United States. US English expresses its opposition to multilingualism by presenting a number of
statistics to show how expensive multilingualism is and monolingualism is therefore a wiser decision. Below is an example of the statistics
presented on their homepage: It costs $1.86 million annually to prepare written translations for food stamp recipients nationwide. The cost for
oral translations skyrocket to $21 million nationally per year (US Office of Management and Budget, 2002). The statistics indeed shows how
costly multilingualism is, which makes most people believe more in monolingualism, or the use of English. Nowadays most people are very
economic-minded, so economical monolingualism has a great appeal. Also, most people believe in the use of a common language because it is
convenient. That makes them believe more in monolingualism. The value of being economical and convenient is so prevalent today that it
makes most people accept the existing Hegemony of English in which the most dominant language is used as a common language. Selfish
individualism Selfish individualism is a form of individualism that seeks only the self-interests. English is a passport to success today and most
people want to learn it for their own interests and achievements. They need English for their own profits. They do not care about the problems
caused by the Hegemony of English. Rather, they support and accept English as a global standard language and try to get rewards by learning it.
When I went to the United States in 2007 on a Fulbright grant and gave lectures on the Hegemony of English to the American professors and
students, I received quite a lot of feedback to my lectures that was based on Selfish individualism. At one of the lectures I gave, the following
voice came out from the audience showing the feelings of discomfort to my lecture on the Hegemony of English: “I take pride in mastering
English as a second language. What’s wrong with that?” The student was proud of his mastery of English and seemed to be doing well in the
United States. He failed to understand that the Hegemony of English is a social and public issue and therefore it
should be addressed beyond the scope of individual gain or loss . English enabled this student to become
a successful immigrant and he benefits from the Hegemony of English. Instead of trying to understand
the problems of the Hegemony of English, he confines himself in selfish individualism . On another occasion,
there was even more emotional response to my lecture coming from a professor: “The world has chosen English. And there is nothing wrong
with it!” This emotional statement was made by a professor who I imagine had immigrated to the United States. The reason that these
successful immigrants to the United States strongly disagree to my arguments on the Hegemony of English is that they feel as though they were
criticized because they had taken advantage of the Hegemony of English. They feel it is English that has made them what they are today. They
have benefited from English and gained a lot of rewards from it. These individual
successes and achievements prevent them
from recognizing the realities of the Hegemony of English. They have been deluded into the confines of
selfish individualism and fail to recognize the significance of the Hegemony of English beyond the scope
of individual success and achievement. The Hegemony of English is also a product of an achievement-
oriented competitive society.
Impact --- Imperialism Terminal
Eurocentric geopolitics constitutes a politics of inequality that institutionalizes
global oppression --- confronting the metaphysical structures of European thought
is a prerequisite to solving any environmental catastrophe or nuclear war
Grove 16 [Jairus, Professor of IR @ Hawaii, January 11, 2016, http://bostonreview.net/forum/new-
nature/jairus-grove-jairus-grove-response-jedediah-purdy]
Unlike many who appeal to the Anthropocene simply to advance the cause of geoengineering, Jedediah Purdy begins with an assessment of
our political condition. Still, he fails
to appreciate the nature of the geopolitics responsible for the crisis we
face. If we are to take up his noble call for an ecological democracy, we must acknowledge that the violence done to our planet
has largely been perpetrated not by all humans but by a select group of Europeans. The Anthropos —the
human species as such—is not to blame. Properly named, our era is not the Anthropocene but the Eurocene. It
was a European elite that developed a distinctively mechanistic view of matter , an oppositional relationship to
nature, and an economic system indebted to geographical expansion. The resulting political orders
measured success by how much wealth could be generated in the exploitation of peoples and resources .
The geological record bears the mark of this European assemblage of hierarchies . Understanding the
forces of Europeanization—the forces of racial superiority, economic hegemony, and global resettlement—is
essential to understanding how the planet got to this point, and how “we” could possibly become
democratic. Purdy and others claim there are two reasons for renaming the last few centuries to mark a new geological era. The first is a
matter of accuracy: there is significant evidence that humans have contributed to climate change. The second is a matter of consciousness
raising: renaming the Holocene is essential to raising awareness that humans are responsible. Yet on both counts, we should reconsider
what we mean by “human.” It would be more accurate, and go further in raising awareness, to acknowledge the grossly
disproportionate impact Europeans have had on our planet. This is not just another hyperbolic jeremiad against
European peoples: Purdy’s invitation for global democratic thinking requires a geological history and
name that foregrounds what really stands in the way of such a future. As Purdy points out (unlike Paul Crutzen and
others), the “human” footprint involves much more than just carbon dioxide. On a geological time scale, the effects of
atmospheric carbon dioxide are dwarfed by those of radioactivity and are comparable to those of
plastic, the modern waste product par excellence. If the Anthropocene is meant to name the scale of
human impacts on the planet, it should refer not only to warming but also to cooling the earth, and
Europeanization has done both at levels that even China’s current growth cannot match. Beginning in 1610, a
small-scale ice age took hold of the planet when a wilder arboreal nature took back what had been inhabited land: some 20 million
people killed by the European invasion of the Americas resulted in vast reforestation of the North and
South American continents. The providence spoken of by those who arrived was not God but syphilis,
influenza, and the number of other species that went along for the ride. Waves of well-armed European
explorers and settlers leveraged the devastation for their own gain. There is no way to know how
many languages, cities, ideas, cosmologies, and ways of inhabiting the world were lost in this
genocide and terraforming of the Americas. The history of nucle ar weapons is also
predominantly European. The bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, is only the beginning of this story. In the
years that have followed, more than 2,000 nuclear weapons have been tested, about 97 percent of which
were detonated by European powers . Those detonations do not appear as tests from the perspectives of
the Marshallese or Western Shoshone. A seventy-year nuclear war has spread cancer, incinerated sacred
lands, and made other spaces uninhabitable on a temporal scale several orders of magnitude more
condensed than the lifespan of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The nuclear powers of the Eurocene—the United States,
Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and Israel—possess 97 percent of the 15,800 nuclear weapons around the planet. The beleaguered
state of the arms control agenda means self-annihilation is still a very real possibility . As for plastic, the
Texas-sized trash gyres that swirl in the world’s oceans are another reminder of what a cosmology of
disposability and synthetic chemistry has wrought . Plastic may lack the longevity of carbon dioxide and
irradiated earth, but for hundreds, maybe thousands of years it will continue to circulate, wreaking
havoc throughout the food chain. We have post–World War II European development to thank for single-serve plastic shampoo
pouches and bottled water—the latter needed only because nearby streams have been sold to Coca-Cola. Acknowledging the
distinctively European history of our geological era serves a practical as well as a polemical end. Any
democratic project must confront the geopolitics of the Eurocene because it challenges the very
paradigm of equality. “In the Anthropocene,” Purdy writes, “environmental justice might also mean an equal role in shaping the future
of the planet.” In fact, environmental justice will require unequal roles: significantly constraining, even
repressing, the powers of the Eurocene. On the eve of the creation of the United Nations at the
Dumbarton Oaks conference, W. E. B. Du Bois saw the failure of a dream before it had even been fully
formed: the vast new international body was little more than the institutionalization of the global “color
line.” The great powers had insisted upon a Security Council, and the General Assembly would be subordinated to its nuclear authority.
Purdy’s suggestion that the planet could be governed equally ignores the vast systems of injustice—
settler-colonialism, primitive accumulation, and violent power politics—that stand in the way, upheld by
great powers that use nuclear weapons to deter change and deploy swarms of drones to hunt down
those too small for the nuclear option. I would like to be part of Purdy’s ecological democracy, but he is wrong to say “There is
no political agent, community, or even movement on the scale of humanity’s world-making decisions.” We share a world governed
by a few states with the capability of ending all life on the planet. At the international scale, these
states are essentially authoritarian; they rule by economic violence and warfare . That some of those
states are not authoritarian at the domestic level is of little consequence to the rest of the world. It should
come as no surprise that the leaders of the food sovereignty and anti–fossil fuel movements Purdy describes belong to marginalized groups
that see no future in our current geopolitical order. Indigenous, black, and brown people are at the vanguard of political struggle not because
they are more natural but because they have had front row seats in the making of this crisis. The Eurocene is not perpetrated by all people of
European heritage, many of whom oppose the existing geopolitical order—myself included. This distinction—between being
European and being an agent of the Eurocene—only intensifies the need to rethink democratization as
demanding a politics of inequality rather than a politics of incorporation . Such a remaking of justice is as complex
and difficult as the climate crisis itself, and just as worthy a struggle, irrespective of whether we can succeed . As Sylvia Wynter has said,
“we must now collectively undertake a rewriting of knowledge as we know it. . . . because the West did
change the world, totally.” To do so means exiting the Anthropocene as an idea, and collectively—even
if not equally—exiting the Eurocene as a failed epoch. As Wynter says, we need to consider other “genres of
the human.” Wynter explains she will not miss the Anthropos because she, among so many others, was
never considered human to begin with. To invent a new species is the task that must be undertaken
before there can be a “we,” an “our,” or a “cene” that is more than a requiem for the end.
Impact --- Assimilation of Culture
English hegemony Americanizes global culture and causes assimilation --- polls and empirics prove
Americanization of culture The impact of English hegemony upon culture is another serious problem . You may have
already heard the words and concepts such as Coca-colonization and McDonaldization of culture, both referring to an enormous influence of
American consumer culture upon the local cultures of almost all parts of the world. The global spread of American products
influences people’s minds, values, and ways of life. In this influence, English plays an important role. The spread of American
products goes hand in hand with the spread of English, thus buying and using American products facilitates the spread of
English which in turn facilitates the global spread of American products, creating the cycle of reinforcing
the hegemony of English and American materialistic culture . Some people say that although Americanization of culture is
happening, it is changing only the surface of the local cultures across the world. I suspect, however, that its effects are larger than we imagine.
The impact of Americanization of culture penetrates the depth of human imagination and lifestyles. It
has changed the value-
systems and belief-systems of many cultures to American ones . The invasion of English and American
culture is causing not only the replacement of languages, but also the replacement of mental structures.
I can give you two typical examples to illustrate this point. One is from China, the other is from the Ladakh, a minority tribe living in the
Himalayan mountains. First, China is now at the height of growing capitalism which promotes Americanization of its culture. As early as 1997,
Asiaweek, a weekly magazine, featured an article on a rapid Americanization of China (Asiaweek, 1997). The article
introduced the comments by some specialists on China. One commentator says: “The Chinese want the American lifestyle, a modern lifestyle,
the way they think Americans live.” Another comment is as follows: “America represents an ideal for the Chinese. It’s lifestyle that they aspire
to, the spirit of America.” The article also reports that today Michael
Jordan is now more popular than Mao Zedong, the
late charismatic leader of China. Another example that vividly illustrates the Americanization of culture has been provided by
Helena Norberg-Hodge, a Swedish ecologist. She reports that the impact of American culture penetrates even the small ethnic tribal people
living in the high mountains of the Himalayas. They are called Ladakh. She deplores the Westernization of Ladakh as follows: wholesale, and at
the same time eagerly embrace the new one. They rush after the symbols of modernity: sunglasses, Walkmans, and blue jeans several sizes too
small – not because they find these jeans more attractive or comfortable, but because they are symbols of modern life (Norberg-Hodge, 1991,
p. 98) It is very sad to see that the young Ladakhis have lost confidence in their own culture and develop inferiority complex toward the
Western culture. It will be very difficult for the Ladakh culture to be transmitted to the next and the following generations. (Also, I notice that
Norberg-Hodge referred to the Japanese product, Walkman as a Western influence, which indicates that Japan has been highly Westernized.)
Helena Norberg-Hodge further argues that due to the influence of violent Hollywood movies, the young Ladakis show a tendency toward
violent and emotionally unstable behaviors. She regrets to say that traditionally calm and considerate Ladakhis have transformed into a more
aggressive people. These two examples clearly demonstrate that the impact of Western culture, especially the American material and media
culture is not superficial, but profound to the extent that is affecting the very nature of each local culture across the world and that the
Hegemony of English plays an important role in its effects. There is no doubt that English is the language of globalization and global economy. If
any country wants to have a share of benefits of globalization, they have to incorporate English into their society. Rather, they are forced to
choose English. However, doing so may jeopardize the independence and uniqueness of their traditional cultures as demonstrated above. The
dominance of one language is now affecting the cultures and ways of life all over the world and homogenizing them into a Western and
particularly American pattern of life. Indeed, Coca-colonization, McDonaldization, and Hollywoodization of the world is taking place.
Impact --- Dehumanization
English is used as a measure of humanity --- dehumanizes all that don’t speak
English and results in social death
2008)//chiragjain
first example comes from as Time magazine article which reports on a Chinese immigrant to the
The
United States. He was confined in a mental institution for thirty-one years because of "the incomprehensible
English" he spoke. The article reports that when the Chinese visited a doctor, he was diagnosed as "abnormal" because of the English he spoke. ("Free at last," 1984) The second
example illustrates discrimination among the non-native speakers of English. Kazuo Kojima, a Japanese journalist, writes an essay about the role of English in Southeast Asia as a basis of
discrimination (Kojima,1996). Being able to speak English is such a source of pride for the people in these countries
that some proficient speakers of English are inclined to insult and discriminate against those who can not speak English. Kojima
himself has a personal experience of having heard an Indian say, "Iraqis are beasts, because they can't speak English." I believe this
is rather an extreme case, and most Indians do not hold such an discriminatory attitude. However, these two examples suggest that the dominance of English is such
that the stereotypes and prejudices are easily created to hold a discriminatory perception and attitude toward those
who do not and cannot speak English. In other words, English, because of its dominant prestigious status, functions as a basis of
discrimination, and therefore legitimates and reproduces the perceptions of linguistic prejudice and discrimination. Discriminatory perceptions and
attitudes toward non-English-speakers justify the social hierarchy which places native speakers of English at the top of the order with
non-native speakers of English placed in the middle, and the people who do not speak English placed at the bottom. The dominance of English is such that
English serves as a criterion by which to classify people according to the proficiency in English. Thus, native
speakers of English reign as a prestigious ruling class of international communication : they can easily
express their ideas any time, while non-native speakers and people who do not speak English constitute
the "muted" working class of international communication: they are slaved to learn English and have
difficulty in expressing their ideas. This is what I call "The Class Structure of International Communication" on the basis of proficiency in English.
Turns Case
Language of diplomacy inevitably results in power imbalances --- examining the
underlying assumptions of diplomacy is key to effective use
Choice of language Let
us first look into different aspects of diplomatic language in its basic meaning – that of a
tongue. Obviously, the first problem to solve is finding a common tongue . Diplomats only exceptionally find themselves in the
situation of being able to communicate in one language, common to all participants. This may be done between, for example, Germans and Austrians, or
Portuguese and Brazilians, or representatives of different Arab countries, or Britishers and Americans, etc. Not only are such occasions rare, but very often there is a
serious difference between the “same” language used in one country and another. Thereare several ways to overcome the problem of
communication between people who speak different mother tongues. None of these is ideal. One solution, obviously, is that one
of the interlocutors speaks the language of the other . Problems may arise: the knowledge of the
language may not be adequate, one side is making a concession and the other has an immediate and
significant advantage, there are possible political implications, it may be difficult to apply in multilateral
diplomacy, etc. A second possibility is that both sides use a third, neutral, language . A potential problem
may be that neither side possesses full linguistic knowledge and control, leading to possible serious
misunderstandings. Nevertheless, this method is frequently applied in international practice because of
its political advantages. A third formula, using interpreters, is also very widely used, particularly in multilateral diplomacy or for negotiations at a very
high political level - not only for reasons of equity, but because politicians and statesmen often do not speak foreign languages. This method also has disadvantages:
it is time consuming, costly, and sometimes inadequate or straightforwardly incorrect (even if the translator has a good knowledge of both languages, he/she may
not be familiar with the particular subject which can be extremely specific – from the protection of the ozone layer to the homologisation of sports records; it was
not without reason that the slogan traduttore-traditore ‘translator = traitor’, was found in mediaeval Italy). Finally, there is the possibility of using one international
synthetic, artificial language, such as Esperanto; this solution would have many advantages, but unfortunately is not likely to be implemented in the near future,
mostly because of the opposition of factors that dominate in the international political – and therefore also cultural and linguistic – scene. So,
which
language is the best choice for diplomatic use? The answer is not simple at all. To start with, there is no single
diplomatic lingua franca that could be inscribed in the above-mentioned catchphrase. In the past there were periods when one language or another served as a
common, widely-used means of inter-state communication, although usually limited to certain geographic areas or political groups of countries. Such a role was
played by Acadian (Asyrian-Babilonian), by literary Chinese, by Greek "koin`e" (a mixture of dialects, based mainly on Ionic and Attic), and later by mediaeval Greek,
then Latin, Arabic, Turkish, and yet later by Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Italian, Dutch, German, French, and recently, more and more, by English. Very
often
attempts have been made to impose one language or another, with the argumentation that it is
"clearer", "more flexible", "more expressive", "more eloquent, subtle or refined", "most suitable for
international negotiations", etc. The mere fact that historically such a role has been taken in turns by so
many languages proves that linguistic or semantic reasons are not decisive. On the contrary, it can be said that
the dominant role of one language or another in diplomacy has resulted from the political, strategic,
economic, cultural or other domination of one power or another in international relations.
Perm
Perm --- Fails
Perm fails --- any diplomacy or cooperation that includes the US and China
inevitably results in imperialist tendencies that can only be examined and
challenged by the alt
Choi, 3 (Po-King, Associate Professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, has a PhD in Philosophy
from Oxford, a Masters in Philosophy from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and a bachelor’s
degree in social science, “‘The best students will learn English’: ultra-utilitarianism and linguistic
imperialism in education in post-1997 Hong Kong,” http://www2.hawaii.edu/~cmhiggin/PDFs/Choi
%20HK%20best%20students%20English.pdf, pages 685 – 687, //VZ)
another major undertaking was the strengthening of
The ‘English for business’ rhetoric The shaping of education policy was, of course, an important achievement of the Language Campaign. Yet
the English rhetoric through high-profile propaganda activities. In 1992, advertisements about Hong
Kong’s need to have ‘plenty of good English speakers . . . if it is to maintain its international
competitiveness’ were put out by the Language Campaign (LCB5: 1–2). These were carried by the South China Morning Post, the Asian Wall Street Journal and Time magazine, all of which offered space free of charge for an extended
efforts were made by their members or invited guests to hammer similar

period of time. And, throughout the existence of the Language Campaign,
messages into the public mind through writings, speeches and interviews. Taken together, these
messages constructed a kind of discourse that conveyed the unquestionable, almost ‘natural’,
importance of English ( it assumed the existence of an all-important world of ‘international’
Li 2000). First of all,
business and finance that was overwhelmingly populated by English speakers. In order to compete for Hong Kong
for, or retain its membership, in this world its inhabitants had to speak fluent English, and this therefore,
seemed to be the most important, if not the only, way. A typical remark is this one made by Brian Renwick, Senior Manager Personnel of the Hongkong Bank, who also became the second
A supplementary argument was

chairperson of the Language Campaign: ‘English is the international language of business’ and ‘we need more competent English speakers if we are to keep up the Hong Kong success story’ (LCB2: 1).
that employees ‘speak the language of customer service’, which,

Hong Kong relied on an expanding service industry sector, and it was important that
presumably, was English. Not only were most, if not all, customers imagined to be English speakers,
but these customers demanded much more than correct grammar or extensive vocabulary . ‘Equally important [for business], if
This emphasis on spoken English, near-native fluency and even ‘nuance’ is

not more so, are nuance, a smile, an offer to help’, it was said (LCB1: 2).
interesting, as it set up a hierarchy of English capacity, whereby the ‘native (English) speaker’ naturally
stood on top, and others were placed on descending rungs accordingly . Because this hierarchy was
taken to be universal, this view had an unmistakably imperialist slant to it . Supplementing the oft-repeated rhetoric that English was the international
English was assigned an

language of business (LCB2: 1–2, LCB3: 2, LCB5: 1–2), therefore, were declarations that ‘the use of the English language should be viewed as a matter of convenience, practicality and universality’ (LCB8: 2). Furthermore,
intrinsic, absolute value. : ‘Cheap English doesn’t go with

Speaking at a Language Campaign symposium, Roy Harris, Chair of English Language, University of Hong Kong, stated bluntly
quality goods, services or operations of any kind’. Commenting on the standards of English locally, he
said: ‘If Hong Kong English were up for auction on the international market, there isn’t a self-respecting
country in the world that would even put in a bid for it’ The imperialist and the absolutist stance (Harris 1989: 1).
of the English superiority discourse came across very strongly in this terse remark. This kind of discourse entails closure on at least two fronts,
since English is taken to be the ‘universal’ language, there is no need to

and, as it impacts on education, leads to very undesirable consequences. Firstly,
learn other ‘less important’ or ‘less universal’ languages. Indeed, Yaohan, the Japanese retail chain store which had joined the Language Campaign early on, was prepared to train its staff
The second closure arises from

in language skills (meaning English) in order to strengthen internal communications. In this establishment, it was said: ‘English is the medium between Japanese management and Chinese staff’ (LCB4: 2).
the overriding instrumentality behind the learning of English, which not only displaces the cultural
element involved in language learning, but reduces the goal of education to merely the acquisition , worse still,
of a ‘language of customer service’ or an ‘international language of business’ ( (LCB1: 2) LCB3: 2). On the rare occasion when Language Campaign
importance of learning English was stressed again.

members acknowledged the educational value of learning in one’s first language, this realization was nevertheless set aside rapidly, and the
The fear of ‘how much your business might be losing through employees’ poor English?’ was strong
enough to take one’s mind away from educational considerations.9 Take the best students and teach
them English Lin had pointed out that foreign business interests and certain academic discourses
(1996: 58)
supported the government’s English-dominated policies (most notably, recruitment policies) by

furnishing rhetoric that legitimized the subordination of all educational goals to the dominant goal of
mastering a foreign language , they were able to
. Indeed, that was what members of the Language Campaign, which included also local businesses, had been striving at, rather successfully. Through this
shift staff-training costs onto public education expenses, while maintaining and asserting a racial-cum-
linguistic superiority and ideology well beyond 1997. As in the colonial days, the present language
selection policy is strongly elitist. I have shown, in the above section, how the selection mechanism guarantees that the academically best students would learn in the English medium, thereby making them near-native English
These people would then function as brokers between the powerful Englishspeaking
speakers (so-called ‘truly bilingual’, in official terms).
investors (the ‘international’ business interests) and the local Chinese . Tsim (1989: para. 1.11), in his commissioned report on English proficiency in Hong Kong
submitted to the Hong Kong Language Campaign, stated the status and function of this group very clearly: The Hong Kong Chinese who can act as a bridge between East and West, between the expatriates who speak no Cantonese and the locals who speak little English, belong to perhaps
With the
the top ten to twenty per cent of the class in our Anglo-Chinese schools. Every effort should be made to ensure that they will be able to learn English, to learn in English if they want to, and use English in their adult life without fear of social ostracism.
institutionalization of the supremacy of English-medium education now in place, this English-oriented

elite need not have any fear, of course Even with the return of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty, .
English supremacy would not be undermined, as long as the total subordination of the education
system to instrumental needs is maintained . Peter Sutch, Chairperson of John Swire & Sons (HK) Ltd, was sure of this, as he spoke in the third Symposium of the Language Campaign in 1993: Hong Kong’s
continued success as an international business centre is to a substantial extent dependent on the use of English as its lingua franca, a fact recognized by the Chinese government which is opposed to a reduction in the emphasis on English in Hong Kong schools in favour of Chinese (LCB7:
An important question that is never asked, however, is to what extent, and for how much longer, Hong
5).
Kong has to sacrifice the development of young minds so as to ensure the production of the best
linguistic brokers, instead of better citizens. Peter Sutch might not care about the value of education for Hong Kong students in their own language, but education researchers such as Brimer et al. (1985: 8) did
point out, as mentioned above, the unquestionable advantage of learning through Chinese for Chinese students in Hong Kong. Other researchers have also reported the unsurprising observation that classroom participation and student-teacher interaction were much better in classrooms
using Chinese as the teaching medium.10 While EMI schools obtain the best students, therefore, they do not provide the best education because they are handicapped by the foreign medium of teaching. On the other hand, CMI schools which adopt the most effective medium of teaching
extra resources are committed to improving

are labelled as ‘second class’ as a result of the selection policy, and they are therefore subject to a certain degree of demoralization. Under the present policy, too,
English skills (for their own students), or to running bridging courses (for EMI schools), rather than to the
long-neglected work in building the groundwork for first-language education, such as preparing
appropriate textbooks, Chinese wordprocessing equipment and training, and so on.11 The privileging of
the training of ‘linguistic brokers’ in education policy will clearly have long-term deleterious effects on
education and society as a whole.
Perm --- Aff Can’t Solve
Underlying institutions ensure that the perm can’t solve --- the aff revitalizes those
institutions
Hammond 14 --- Alex Hammond is a prolific language and travel blogger, writing for ESL – Language Travel. ESL is an award-
winning study abroad organization. He has studied linguistics and literature at the universities of Sussex and Innsbruck. (“How
did English become the world’s most widely spoken language?”, Alex Hammond, March 6, 2014, ESL Blog, http://blog.esl-
languages.com/blog/learn-languages/english/english-language-global-number-one/)//chiragjain
Five hundred years ago, between five and seven million people spoke English , almost all of them living in the
British Isles. Now, anywhere up to 1.8 billion people around the world speak English . How did this happen? The growth
of English has nothing to do with the structure of the language, or any inherent qualities, and everything to do with politics. The British
Empire After developing for almost a millennium on the British Isles, English was taken around the world by the sailors, soldiers,
pilgrims, traders and missionaries of the British Empire. By the time anything resembling a language policy was introduced, English
had already reached all corners of the globe. For example, English-speaking puritans were not the only Europeans to arrive in North America: Spanish, French, Dutch
and German were also widely spoken. All of the languages were reinforced by waves of immigration from Europe in the following centuries. British-Empire Bu tin
the process of designing a “United” States, the USA’s founders knew the importance of language for
national identity. English was the majority language and had to be encouraged. As recently as the start
of the 20th Century, several states banned the teaching of foreign languages in private schools and
homes. The U.S. Supreme Court only struck down restrictions on private language education in 1923. Even today, English is not the official language of the USA,
but there is no question that it is the dominant language in practice. And it wasn’t just America that said “hello” to English. At one
point in the early twentieth century, the British Empire expanded across almost a quarter of the world’s
surface, not including the USA. According to a popular saying, “the sun never set on the British Empire”.
Nowadays, the sun has set on the empire, but English remains an important language in every single
former colony. Gone but not forgotten In most of the British Empire, the main goal was trade so fewer Britons actually settled. This explains why English did
not come to dominate colonies in Asia and Africa, where it was the language of business, administration and education, but not the language of the people. British-
Empire-colonies To this day, English has a key administrative role in these former colonies. For a long time, access to English meant access to education, whether in
the mission schools in Africa or the first universities in India. This created an English-speaking elite in some of the world’s most populous countries, and elites are
good at self-preservation. Post-independence, many countries became officially multilingual for the first time, but the various groups needed a language for
communication with each other and with other nations. Again, that was English. English is now the dominant or official language in 75 territories: a direct legacy of
the British Empire. In countries where large settler colonies were formed, such as Australia, Canada and the USA, native languages and cultures have been pushed to
near-extinction by the presence of English. It was not the first language of European colonialism; Portuguese and Dutch left the continent earlier. And, as recently as
the 19th century, English wasn’t the world’s lingua franca (as the term suggests, French was the number one language of international communication). So
something must have happened more recently to give the language its unique international status. Without the rise of the USA in the 20th Century, the world’s
language landscape would look very different. Two world wars and the rise of the USA While
Europe was rebuilding in the years after
1945, the USA boomed. American businesses picked up where the British East India Company had left off
centuries before, taking English around the world as a language of trade. The influence of American
business, combined with the tradition of English left around the world by the British Empire, have made
English the number one language of international trade in the 21st Century. All of the world’s top
business schools now teach in English. English is now the most widely spoken foreign language in 19 of
the 25 EU Member States where it is not an official language. The 6 states where English is not number one also show the
importance of politics in language policy: Russian is the most widely spoken foreign language in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia; Croatian the most commonly spoken
in Slovenia; and Czech the most widely spoken in Slovakia. But the cultural legacy of the post-war decades is also very important to the growth of English as a world
language. As well as sending money across the Atlantic, the USA
provided the soundtrack through rock and roll, jazz and,
later, disco and hip hop. Hollywood movies became global sensations and American television series
became cultural reference points. American culture was everywhere, radiating confidence and success; just the things for a
world that had been ravaged by war. It wasn’t just American music that brought English into the world’s discotheques and homes. British bands including the
Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Queen, Pink Floyd, the Police or Led Zeppelin ensured that Britannia ruled the airwaves, if not the waves. The hippy movement came
from San Francisco and London. Music festivals including the Isle of Wight and Woodstock became iconic for a whole generation, whether English speakers or not.
This “soft power” continues today… English is “cool” Advertisers pride themselves on riding the cultural
zeitgeist; creating consumer desire through making products sexy. One of the ways they do this is
through using English words. Check out Der Spiegel’s German examples, La Razon’s Spanish examples, Slate.fr’s French ones and La Repubblica’s
Italian ones. Now-hiring Many examples of English in advertising come from multinational companies , who wish to keep
their message consistent across markets, but some examples are local firms looking for that elusive element of glamour
that English can bring. Of course, this happens in English too: haute couture and Eau de Toilette sound much sexier untranslated. Ba nds release
their work in English to reach the largest possible audience. Film-makers too . This invisible pressure to
produce creative works in English adds to the cultural momentum the language developed in the second
half of the Twentieth Century. The style-conscious language of extreme sports is English: snowboarders ollie, fakie and rodeo whether they are
Canadian, Swiss or Japanese. The word “cool” itself has been assimilated into various languages. Science & Technology The global power of the
USA coincided with the birth of popular computing , and English is the language of the technological
revolution and the internet. Consider a keyboard for example; they are designed for Latin characters, so
speakers of Asian languages (particularly) use complicated techniques to enter words. What happens
inside the devices is also dominated by English. The USA remains the most innovative technological
nation and, because of the language policy of the nation’s founders, English is the dominant language.
Pull not push Apart from the efforts of some early colonisers, hundreds of years ago, the success of English has more to do with “pull” than “push”. People in
British colonies who wanted an education would receive that education in English. Artists who want to
reach the largest audience for their work can do that in English. If you want to trade internationally, you
will need to speak English. And you don’t have to speak English to have a successful career, but it certainly helps. Will English remain number one?
Some people suggest that English has become ubiquitous because it is “easy to learn” or especially flexible, but a
glance backwards suggests that this is irrelevant . Despite a devilishly complex case system, Latin was Europe’s most influential language
for over a thousand years (and its descendents are still going strong). People learned Latin then for the same reasons they learn English now: to get ahead in life and
have access to knowledge. Yet
now Latin is only spoken by priests and scholars. Languages and borders change
over time, but English is likely to remain the world’s number one language during our lifetimes.
Framework
Framework --- Aff Grammar Bad
The didactic pedagogies of the 1AC forwards an act of linguistic imperialism – the
promise for a better world is predicated on securing a share of a settler-
appropriated wealth and cultural genocide --- creates an in round simulation for
violence and imperialism
Choi, 3 (Po-King, Associate Professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, has a PhD in Philosophy
from Oxford, a Masters in Philosophy from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and a bachelor’s
degree in social science, “‘The best students will learn English’: ultra-utilitarianism and linguistic
imperialism in education in post-1997 Hong Kong,” http://www2.hawaii.edu/~cmhiggin/PDFs/Choi
%20HK%20best%20students%20English.pdf, pages 676 – 677, //VZ)
This paper analyses the processes involved in the formulation of a language policy which perpetuates
inequality and linguistic imperialism. language use and linguistic capital is an important My analysis rests on the premise that
determinant of social and political power (Bourdieu 1991), and this works in at least two ways. Firstly,
the mastery of a certain language or language style signifies power and status. English In a former colony of the UK such as Hong Kong,
continues to function as a gatekeeper to positions of power and prestige (Pennycook 1995: 40), since the
change in sovereignty does not entail an overhaul of the social and economic structure that has existed
previously in the case of Singapore, the new ruling party actually reinforces English supremacy,
. Or, as
successfully weaving it into the fabric of the state ideology of building a new meritocratic and
technocratic society, while retaining and encouraging foreign capital by providing a ‘pleasant’ place for
expatriates to live (Pennycook 1994: 223–258). Secondly, as Fairclough (1989: 19–20) demonstrates, unequal social and political relationships are themselves sustained by the use of language in concrete
the language policy in question actually functions to reproduce an authoritarian

social situations. I would argue, in this paper, that
pedagogical situation where power discrepancy between teacher and student is exacerbated by the
superiority of the English-speaking teacher . didactic pedagogy and passive learning that As a result,
characterizes teaching and learning via a foreign medium remains unchanged but the language . Not only that,
policy itself is justified by the need of the local Chinese employee or salesperson to cater to English-
speaking entrepreneurs or clients This, of course, replicates the former colonial situation whereby
.
locals (‘natives’) were rewarded for their command of the colonizer’s language this (Phillipson 1992: 109–135). Of course,
political aspect of power inequality is well disguised by the widespread discourse that English is a
neutral, global language of trade, science and technology, and tool for international an indispensable
communication , wellsought after by non-English speaking communities themselves (Li 2000). Language policy in education merits analysis, because social stratification based on language use is mediated by the school system, which often uses language as the
, I shall highlight the ways in which it helps maintain

‘one criterion for determining which people will complete different levels of education’ (Tollefson 1991: 8). As I examine this policy, therefore
an elitist and socially divisive structure. The dominance of English rests heavily on the saturation of a
certain linguistic ideology in the public discourses , so that it is generally accepted as ‘natural’ even by the underprivileged, non-English speaking classes (Fairclough 1989: 1–5, Phillipson 1992: 17–37,
the institutionalization of a highly selective system based on the command of

Pennycook 1995: 36–38). For this particular policy under discussion,
English has proceeded in such a way that the reality of political and social inequality remains hidden
behind pragmatic and technical considerations . This was done with the help of academic research as
‘expert’ backup, and also via the engineering of a favourable discourse by corporate interests prior to the 1997
While language policy is propped up by implicit ideology, its existence as an ‘authoritarian

changeover.
allocation of values’ which ‘project[s] images of an ideal society’ (Ball 1990: 3) also means that its very formulation and implementation actually constitute a discursive
practice which involves the closure of alternative options and views. I shall show in later sections how a cost-effective programme of English training for the socially endowed (presented as the naturally endowed) took precedence over education per se, even for the ‘elite’ students.
Domination is fortunately never complete . Based on interviews of school principals and educationalists involved in Chinese-medium education, I shall try to show that counter-discourses and resistant practices, no matter how weak and
invisible they are, do exist on the local school level. This language selection policy and the narrowly utilitarian discourse it rests on, therefore, never cease to be confronted by alternative educational values, albeit in small and hardly noticeable ways. But first let us examine how the policy
was formulated.
Framework --- Prereq
Language of diplomacy inevitably results in power imbalances --- examining the
underlying assumptions of diplomacy is key to effective use
Choice of language Let
us first look into different aspects of diplomatic language in its basic meaning – that of a
tongue. Obviously, the first problem to solve is finding a common tongue . Diplomats only exceptionally find themselves in the
situation of being able to communicate in one language, common to all participants. This may be done between, for example, Germans and Austrians, or
Portuguese and Brazilians, or representatives of different Arab countries, or Britishers and Americans, etc. Not only are such occasions rare, but very often there is a
serious difference between the “same” language used in one country and another. Thereare several ways to overcome the problem of
communication between people who speak different mother tongues. None of these is ideal. One solution, obviously, is that one
of the interlocutors speaks the language of the other . Problems may arise: the knowledge of the
language may not be adequate, one side is making a concession and the other has an immediate and
significant advantage, there are possible political implications, it may be difficult to apply in multilateral
diplomacy, etc. A second possibility is that both sides use a third, neutral, language . A potential problem
may be that neither side possesses full linguistic knowledge and control, leading to possible serious
misunderstandings. Nevertheless, this method is frequently applied in international practice because of
its political advantages. A third formula, using interpreters, is also very widely used, particularly in multilateral diplomacy or for negotiations at a very
high political level - not only for reasons of equity, but because politicians and statesmen often do not speak foreign languages. This method also has disadvantages:
it is time consuming, costly, and sometimes inadequate or straightforwardly incorrect (even if the translator has a good knowledge of both languages, he/she may
not be familiar with the particular subject which can be extremely specific – from the protection of the ozone layer to the homologisation of sports records; it was
not without reason that the slogan traduttore-traditore ‘translator = traitor’, was found in mediaeval Italy). Finally, there is the possibility of using one international
synthetic, artificial language, such as Esperanto; this solution would have many advantages, but unfortunately is not likely to be implemented in the near future,
mostly because of the opposition of factors that dominate in the international political – and therefore also cultural and linguistic – scene. So,
which
language is the best choice for diplomatic use? The answer is not simple at all. To start with, there is no single
diplomatic lingua franca that could be inscribed in the above-mentioned catchphrase. In the past there were periods when one language or another served as a
common, widely-used means of inter-state communication, although usually limited to certain geographic areas or political groups of countries. Such a role was
played by Acadian (Asyrian-Babilonian), by literary Chinese, by Greek "koin`e" (a mixture of dialects, based mainly on Ionic and Attic), and later by mediaeval Greek,
then Latin, Arabic, Turkish, and yet later by Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Italian, Dutch, German, French, and recently, more and more, by English. Very
often
attempts have been made to impose one language or another, with the argumentation that it is
"clearer", "more flexible", "more expressive", "more eloquent, subtle or refined", "most suitable for
international negotiations", etc. The mere fact that historically such a role has been taken in turns by so
many languages proves that linguistic or semantic reasons are not decisive. On the contrary, it can be said that
the dominant role of one language or another in diplomacy has resulted from the political, strategic,
economic, cultural or other domination of one power or another in international relations.
Framework --- Agency/Decision Making
Linguistic imperialism coopts agency and decision-making skills --- colonization of
the mind and the mindset of inevitable dominance revitalizes this
Theorizing Linguistic Neoimperialism Stephen Howe begins his stimulating Empire: A Very Short Introduction (2002) by asserting that ‘The very word empire : : : has had a complicated history
and many different, fiercely contested meanings,’ and he ends a chapter of historical and terminological clarification by concluding that reaching agreement on definitions is elusive because
‘the subject is so highly charged with political passions and emotion’ (ibid., 34). Harvey (2005) stresses the need to define the concept imperialism if it is to be used analytically rather than
This principle also guided my definition of linguistic imperialism as a variant of linguicism,

merely polemically.
operating through structures and ideologies, and entailing unequal treatment for groups identified by
language (Phillipson, 1992). For Harvey, capitalist imperialism ‘is a contradictory fusion of ‘‘the politics of
state and empire’’ (imperialism as a distinctively political project on the part of the actors whose power is based in command of a territory and a capacity to mobilize its human
and natural resources towards political, economic, and military ends) and ‘‘the molecular processes of capital accumulation in space and time’’ (imperialism as a diffuse political economic
The first is the top-down process of

process in space and time in which command over and use of capital takes primacy)’ (Harvey, 2005, p. 26, italics added).
what a state, or combination of states, or an institution such as a corporation or a university, does to

achieve its goals, which includes the way it manages linguistic capital. The second is the way ‘economic
power flows across and through continuous space, towards or away from territorial entities (such as
states or regional power blocs) through the daily practices of production, trade, commerce, capital
flows, money transfers, labour migration, technology transfer, currency speculation, flows of
information, cultural impulses, and the like’ (ibid.). Most of these are crucially dependent on language, and
constituted by language. Building on this diagnosis of American empire, we can see global English as the capitalist neoimperial
language that serves the interests of the corporate world and the governments that it influences so as to
consolidate state and empire worldwide . This dovetails with the language being activated through molecular processes of linguistic capital accumulation in
space and time. As Harvey explains for the new imperialism, ‘the relation between these two logics should be seen, therefore, as problematic and often contradictory (that is, dialectical) rather
than as functional or one-sided.’ The challenge for the analyst is to ‘keep the two sides of this dialectic simultaneously in motion and not to lapse into either a solely political or a
predominantly economic mode of argumentation’ (ibid., p. 30). So far as linguistic neoimperialism is concerned, the ‘ political mode
of argumentation’ refers to decision-making, policy formation of a general kind (corresponding to status, corpus and
acquisition planning, both overt and covert, to which a fourth type can be added, language technology planning),24 whereas the ‘economic mode of
argumentation’ refers to the working through of such decisions at all levels , the implementation of
language planning decisions, actual use of English in myriad contexts . To revert to the examples of earlier sections of this paper,
when English increasingly occupies territory that earlier was the preserve of national languages in
Europe or Asia, what is occurring is linguistic capital accumulation over a period of time and in particular
territories in favor of English, the capitalist neoimperial language . When Singaporean parents gradually shift from an Asian language to
the use of English in the home, this also represents linguistic capital accumulation. If users of German or Swedish as languages of scholarship shift to using English, similar forces and processes
are at work. Demographically small languages have the additional problem that investment in language technology is vastly greater in larger, more economically powerful languages.
When considering agency in each of these examples, the individuals concerned opt for the
neoimperial language because it is felt that this linguistic capital will serve their personal interests
best. In relation to each example, what has not been explored is whether this language shift is additive or subtractive (Skutnabb Kangas, 2000, p. 72). Individual agency
and decision-making reflect a range of societal forces and ideologies (see the typology of 15 factors contributing to the increased
use of English in Europe, grouped as structural and ideological, Phillipson, 2003, pp. 64–65). When language shift is subtractive, and if this affects a group and not merely individuals, there are
There are
serious implications for other languages. If domains such as business, the home, or scholarship are ‘lost,’ what has occurred is in fact linguistic capital dispossession.
agentive forces behind the language shift, causal factors that lead to an increased use of English . If Cantonese
is dropped in Singapore, and if German and Swedish are no longer used for particular functions within the German- or Swedish-speaking areas, this is a consequence of ‘daily practices’ that do
Analysis of the interlocking of language policy with the two constituents of the
not respect national borders or languages.
‘contradictory fusion’ can serve to highlight both corporate agendas, which serve political, economic and
military purposes, and the multiple flows that make use of English for a range of what ELT experts refer
to as ‘special purposes.’ New discourses and technologies are adopted and creatively adapted, new medialects
Thus it is false to project English as though it is ‘neutral,’ English as a mere
evolved, but in an unfree global and local market.
tool that serves all equally well, in whatever society they live . Much of the celebratory literature on ‘global’ English analyses it exclusively
in such instrumental terms. However, as a recent work on the semantics and culture embedded in the grammar and words
of English stresses, publications on ‘global English,’ ‘international English,’ ‘world English,’ ‘standard English,’ and ‘English as a lingua franca’ neglect the
distinctive heritage embedded in the language in its core semantic and grammatical structures , since ultimately
‘in the present-day world it is Anglo English that remains the touchstone and guarantor of English based global communication’ (Wierzbicka, 2006, pp. 13–14). She also refers to the
ethnocentricity of many theorists from the Anglo-American world who mistakenly take Anglo English for the human norm (ibid., p. 12). Teaching materials that falsely build on such analyses
can compound the error: ‘[M]uch intercultural communication itself is typical of a certain Anglo-Saxon culture, discourse and worldview : : : the concept of intercultural communication as it is
currently used can be easily hijacked by a global ideology of ‘‘effective communication’’ Anglo-Saxon style, which speaks an English discourse even as it expresses itself in many different
languages’ (Kramsch, 2002, pp. 283–284). In much intercultural communication, it is the native speakers who are the problem rather than the non-natives (for an example, see Phillipson, 2003,
pp. 167–168). Linguistic imperialism (which continued under neocolonialism) is transmorphing into linguistic neoimperialism during the transition from neoliberalism into empire:
Framework --- Education
All educational benefits fail under the affs epistomology
Majhanovich 13 --- Dr. Suzanne Majhanovich. I am a Professor Emerita/Adjunct Research Professor at
the Faculty of Education, UWO (“How the English language contributes to sustaining the neoliberal
agenda”, Suzanne Majhanovich, 2013, Taylor Francis Online database, 92)//chiragjain
Arguments for the goal of education as a means to liberate human beings, teach them critical thinking
skills and realize their human potential are giving way to more instrumental, utilitarian, and yes,
neoliberal notions. Institutions of learning are now supposed to function to train workers to enter and serve global markets, to prepare students for jobs.
Other more esthetic goals are highly criticized as being irrelevant in today’s world. The language of the market has insinuated itself
into all areas of daily discourse. We speak of the importance of developing the “brand” of our institutions; universities compete for a “target
market” of student “clients” and wish to stake out their position in the “knowledge economy”. This reflects the powerful influence of
globalization on the internationalization of education and homogenization of language What university
administration would dare to omit from its mission statement claims of provision of quality, perhaps
world-class education? Everyone, even young secondary students are urged to prepare “business” plans outlining the courses they will be taking,
chosen to help them develop the skills needed to participate in the global market.
AFF
No Link --- French is IR
The official language of diplomacy and IR is French --- English isn’t uniquely
dominant
Katherine 10 --- Legal Languages Service in Legal Translation (“Why Is French Considered the Language of Diplomacy?”,
Katherine, Legal Language, https://www.legallanguage.com/legal-articles/language-of-diplomacy/, August 2, 2010)//chiragjain
For centuries, political delegates from around the world learned to speak French — the language of
diplomacy and international relations. But what does that mean? How did one of the Romance languages become the international language of law? The Beginnings of the Language of
Diplomacy The French language was beginning to come into its own by the 13th century, becoming more
widely spoken throughout Europe. It was considered sophisticated and associated with high society , and many
people chose to learn it to obtain greater wealth and higher social status. By the middle of the 14th century, French became the most spoken language in Europe,
already being used for diplomatic affairs between several countries . The Hundred Years’ War, which ended in 1453, had an effect on both French and
English nationalism. Despite an effort by English officials to ban French, the language continued to thrive as the
language of diplomacy throughout Europe. The Worldwide Language of Diplomacy The Villers-Cotterêts Ordinance, passed in
1539, decreed that all French administrative documents must be in the French language. This ordinance
made French an official language — a turning point for the country. As France became a world leader throughout the next few centuries, people throughout the
world began to learn French. French was becoming a lingua franca — a language that goes beyond the
boundaries of its community of speakers and becomes a language for communication between groups
not sharing a common tongue. By the 17th century, French was known as the language of diplomacy and
international relations throughout the world. The Rise of English The growing popularity of the English language in recent times means that French may no longer have the
“language of diplomacy” designation that it used to. Political officials and French nationalists have fought to keep French as the international language of diplomacy, but many argue that English has taken over that role.
Despite the popularity of English, the French language still continues to play an integral part in
international relations. Institutions like the United Nations still use French regularly, and the French
language is the official language of many countries and still appears on passports throughout the world.
Though French may not technically be the language of diplomacy any longer, the effects of its wide use over several centuries are still seen in
many places today.

Perm --- Perm Solves/State Key
Institutional mechanisms can solve for the Ecology of Language Paradigm --- specific
reforms are key
Linguistic equality Linguistic equality is a necessary condition for social and communicative equality . There are a variety of reasons for
social inequality, but linguistic inequality is the one that is the most serious and yet not recognized. In any country, the most dominant language often becomes the standard language, putting all other languages into a lower
status. In international communication today, English has become the most dominant language, which has
made all the other languages less prestigious. Thus, linguistic inequality is prevalent today, which justifies
and reproduces social and communicative inequality. In order to overcome social and communicative inequality, linguistic
equality should be realized . Linguistic equality refers to the situation where all the languages are endowed with the equal statuses, so that they will be used equally in communication.
Linguistic equality will be realized when language rights are established because then everyone can use
the language they have chosen. All the international declarations and agreements including the United Nations Charter, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibit us from having language as a ground for discrimination. Linguistic equality together with language rights thus
should be urgently established so that a more equal and democratic international communication will
be made possible where voices of different languages will be heard and recognized. Multilingualism and multiculturalism
Multilingualism and multiculturalism are a new set of ideas that are against Monolingualism and
monoculturalism. Multilingualism and multiculturalism aim to preserve and promote linguistic and
cultural diversity where different languages and cultures can coexist harmoniously without having a single dominant language and culture. Linguistic and cultural diversity are indispensable for the establishment
of language rights and linguistic equality and vice versa. Looking back upon human history, we discover that humankind has been advancing monolingualism and
monoculturalism especially during modernization which required the establishment of a single standard national language. By origin, our
languages and cultures are diverse. Modernization has suppressed linguistic and cultural diversity,
marginalizing weaker languages and cultures. It is time to acknowledge these weaker languages and cultures so that we
will be able to restore linguistic and cultural diversity. I n 1953 UNESCO published a report titled, “The Use of Vernacular Languages in Education”, stressing the
importance of the use of mother tongues in education which has promoted multilingualism, especially in education. In its recent document titled, “Education in a multilingual world” 2003, UNESCO has
provided a new set of principles to further encourage linguistic and cultural diversity in education
around the world. The following is the three basic principles proposed by UNESCO: 1 UNESCO supports mother tongue instruction as a
means of improving educational quality by building upon the knowledge and experience of the learners
and teachers. 2 UNESCO supports bilingual and/or multilingual education at all levels of education as a
means of promoting both social and gender equality and as a key element of linguistically diverse societies.
3 UNESCO supports language as an essential component of inter-cultural education in order to encourage understanding between different population groups and ensure respect for fundamental rights (UNESCO, 2003, p. 30).
Multilingual education should be promoted and the practice and promotion of multilingualism and multiculturalism in education will serve as the foundation for the promotion of linguistic and cultural diversity in society. In
addition, UNESCO has recently issued declarations and conventions supporting the establishment of cultural diversity including the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001) and Convention on the Protection and
In addition to the academic and theoretical

Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005). Proposals to fight against the hegemony of English
explorations shown in the previous section, some concrete measures should be created and if possible, implemented,
to solve the problems caused by the Hegemony of English. There are 5 proposals I would like to make in order to deal with the problems of the Hegemony of English. They are: 1 Global language
agreement 2 The English tax 3 Free English language learning 4 Obligatory use of foreign languages 5
Mother tongue-ism I hope these proposals will be taken seriously and further discussed for improvement and consideration for actual implementation. Global language
agreement This is an agreement among all the nations of the world which ensures linguistic and
communicative equality. The fundamental spirit of this Agreement is: “Language should not be the reason for discrimination .” The spirit
has already been expressed in the important international declarations such as United Nations Charter, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Global
Language Agreement is based on this spirit and will operate as an international legal instrument to
prevent discrimination on the basis of language . Based on the important articles of the three major international declarations above, we will be able to devise three
fundamental principles which express the core philosophy of global language agreement. The principles are as follows: 1st principle: No discrimination should be allowed on the
grounds of language. • 2nd principle: All people should be entitled to the right to their languages and • right to
their cultures. 3rd principle: All people should be entitled to the right of expression, opinion, and information. The
1st principle could be called “The Principle of Linguistic Equality” as it stipulates against linguistic discrimination. The 2nd Principle could be called “The Principle of Cultural Equality” as it clearly expresses the need to preserve a
In international
person’s own culture. The 3rd Principle could be called “The Principle of Equal Information Exchange,” as it emphasizes a person’s right of expression, opinion, and information.
communication where people of different languages and cultures interact, communication should be
practiced according to the three principles above in order to ensure linguistic and communicative
equality so that people can communicate with one another without interference, discrimination, or domination of a
certain group of people who speaks a certain language with a certain culture. We must make a proposal like a Global Language Agreement by incorporating the three principles above. So that people of the world will be able to
communicate more equally without giving a special privilege to a certain language. In order to do that, it is urgently necessary to organize an international body to create Global Language Agreement and make it known to the
world. The English tax The English tax has been inspired by the Tobin Tax, proposed by James Tobin, an American
economist and Nobel Prize winner. The Tobin Tax is a taxation system which imposes tax on international
banking transactions. In foreign exchange market, a huge sum of money is transacted every day across the world, enabling some companies to use methods such as “Hedge Funds” and “Derivatives” to
make billions of dollars. As a result, the banking economy has become considerably lager than the real economy . Also, the market for
international banking transactions is exclusive, as most of the banking transactions are carried out in few large cities such as London, New York and Tokyo, implying that only a small number of people make millions of dollars.
Tobin, in his proposals, attempts to correct this situation by imposing a tax on international banking transactions in order to curtail speculative transactions. The money collected as “Tobin Tax,” should then be redistributed to poor
countries. I was inspired by the “Tobin Tax” and decided to apply the idea to the problem of the hegemony of English. Then I came up with “The English Tax.” Like the Tobin Tax which proposes taxing international banking
, The English Tax will tax the English language used in international communication ,
transactions to curtail speculative banking
and themoney collected will be used to the building of linguistic and communicative equality as well as the
restoration and preservation of minority and endangered languages. All the English words and sentences
will be taxed. Not only the English documents, but also English e-mails, audio-visual materials,
textbooks, and spoken words will be taxed. Hollywood movies will be taxed because of the English language used in them. Multinational corporations will be taxed for the English
language for their business activities. One of the objectives of the English Tax is the curtailment of the use of English. The
users of English, whether they be native or nonnative, will hesitate to use English when the English Tax is practiced.
They will think twice if they should use English or not, which I hope will somehow curtail the use of
English, and thereby reducing the influence of the Hegemony of English. Tobin Tax has already been adopted in France
and Belgium. It is being considered for implementation in the United Kingdom and Spain. Thus, it is very
realistic and very urgently necessary to adopt an international taxation system such as the Tobin Tax as a
counter-measure to excessive globalization which is creating poverty around the world. The same
applies to the solution of the Hegemony of English. In order to further justify “The English Tax,” I shall bring up
“Internet Tax” which was proposed by the United Nations Development Planning (UNDP) in its 1999 annual report. The Internet Tax was proposed to reduce
the Digital Divide that was caused by the global diffusion of information technologies and the spread of
Internet. Namely, only the advanced nations enjoy the blessing of the IT revolution and the poor countries cannot afford it. The Internet Tax was proposed to correct this inequality. According to UNDP report, 88% of the
world’s Internet user population is concentrated in the advanced nations which compose only 15% of the total of the world population. Also, North America, which composes only 4.7% of the world’s total population, contains
“Tobin
more than half of the whole Internet population. The UNDP proposes that 1% should be taxed on each 100 e-mails. It is right that “the rich” are taxed and the money collected will be redistributed to “the poor.”
Tax,” “The English Tax,” and “The Internet Tax” all share this position. That is why these ideas are all very
realistic and should be seriously considered. Free English language learning My third proposal to battle against the
Hegemony of English is Free English Language Learning, which means that English language learning all
over the world should be free of charge . Billions are spent by non-English-speaking people on learning
English, but this should be stopped because it is not fair for the non-English-speaking people to spend so much money . Who gains the
most in the Hegemony of English? Undoubtedly, it is the English speaking people and countries. There are about 500 to 1000 million English speakers around the world. These people benefit as English is a global standard language,
while the most of the world, about 5 billion non-English-speaking people spend a lot of money and time on learning
English, and there is no guarantee if they will really be able to become proficient in English. Rather, they become handicapped in
international communication. The English-speaking people and countries should help the non-English-speaking people and countries if they truly wish English to become a global standard
language for everyone in the world. That is why I propose that English Language Learning should be free. English is a common property for the entire world, it is
wrong for the English-speaking people and countries to benefit from teaching English. English Language Learning should not be
carried out as a business or an industry, because English may be a common good that should be equally shared by all, and not for a certain group of people to make money out of . English should be
taught voluntarily and all resources produced and provided free of charge . The English-speaking people and countries should be glad that
the world is learning their language, and they should not demand any profit from it. They have already had enough benefit. English Language Learning should be free. It is taken for granted that the non-English-speaking people
should spend their money on learning English. If English is a global standard language that everyone in the world should learn, there should be some financial support for the learners so that they will not suffer from the financial
My fourth proposal is the practice of “Obligatory Use of Foreign Languages” in

burden. Obligatory use of foreign languages
international communication. This proposal is made for the purpose of creating a new international custom of
using a foreign language instead of the existing custom of using English . If we make it a custom to use a foreign language in intercultural and
international communication, it will help establish a more equal intercultural and international communication than the
English-dominated communication. By having an equal foreign language handicap, we will be able to communicate more equally.
In intercultural and international communication in which English is a common language, English-speaking people often dominate,
resulting in unequal communication. In contrast, in an international conference where the participants are obligated to speak a foreign language, no one can easily dominate
communication because everybody has to speak a foreign language. Of course, the English-speaking people will have to speak a language other
than English. The objective of this proposal is to give an equal linguistic handicap to all the participants in
intercultural and international communication. As it is now, the English-speaking people have the largest freedom of expression by speaking their own language, while the
other people suffer from an enormous linguistic handicap . By obligating the participants in communication to speak a foreign language, linguistic equality in
communication will be realized. Some people may feel that if everybody speaks different language, it will be very difficult
to understand one another. This problem will be solved with the use of translators . Also, in many cases, most non-English-speaking
people may choose to speak English, I believe, and if the English-speaking people choose to speak French, then the communication will become bilingual and
translation will not too complicated. In addition, the practice of Obligatory Use of Foreign Languages will encourage the English-speaking people to learn foreign languages. By learning
foreign languages, the English- speaking people will not only learn about foreign cultures, but also change their attitudes about languages. It is possible that they will change the imperialist consciousness and “English-Centrism”
This change in their consciousness will be very important in terms of overcoming the
internalized in their minds.
Hegemony of English. Mother tongue-ism My final proposal is “Mother Tongue-ism.” Using English is emphasized
today, while using mother tongues is not. The emphasis on the use of English results in the neglect of mother tongues across the world. In Japan, people are
obsessed with speaking English. As a result, most Japanese speak English to foreigners even though they are in
Japan. They never even try to speak Japanese. Japanese is thus neglected while English takes the center stage. I suspect that this kind of neglect of
mother tongues takes place all over the world in the face of the Hegemony of English . Minority languages that have little
economic and political power are often neglected by their speakers. To deal with the neglect of mother tongues, the use of mother tongues should be encouraged. Mother Tongue-ism, or the active use of
mother tongues, is meaningful at least in two ways. One is that Mother Tongue-ism promotes language rights. To use a mother tongue is to become aware of
the right to one’s own language. The active use of mother tongues is very instrumental in terms of enhancing and recognizing language rights. As a result, the importance of minority
languages and endangered languages will be recognized. The other significance of Mother tongue-ism is that it will promote the
preservation of linguistic and cultural diversity . Mother Tongueism will help preserve a person’s pride in his/her own language and culture, and these help enhance his/ her
cultural identity. Mother Tongue-ism makes us realize the importance of mother-tongue preservation which is necessary to preserve the wisdom stored in mother tongues and to restore and strengthen the pride in and
critics may point out that in order for these 5 proposals to be successful, the
identification with these languages. Some
structural transformations should be made simultaneously in the domains of politics, economics, and
diplomacy as language and communication issues are closely intertwined with all of them. It is
important to create social and international conditions that will help these proposals to be accepted and
effectively implemented. At the same time, it is even more important to raise consciousness about the
Hegemony of English so that more people will become aware of the problems.
Perm --- Japan Proves
Governments check the Hegemony of English --- squo solves or the perm is key
Resistance to this growth and privileging of English is to be expected, and indeed Tsuda (1997) decried
the dominance of English, that its pervasiveness in academe results in: (1) linguistic inequality to a great
disadvantage of the speakers of languages other than English; (2) discrimination against the non-English
speaking people and those who are not proficient in English; and (3) colonization of the consciousness of
and identification with the English, its culture and people. (Tsuda, 1997, p. 22) Tsuda (1997, p. 23) further
lamented the “colonization of consciousness” resulting from dominance of English, that led to
devaluation of local cultures including artistic representation, traditional education practices, local
literatures and languages. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 173 Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 14:05 23 July 2016 Although English has
made inroads into Japanese academe, such that there are many higher education institutions that offer their programmes with the MoI as English, and some
policy makers have even toyed with making English an official language to encourage citizens to learn it, it would appear that English is viewed solely for instrumental purposes. Despite
Tsuda’s concerns, the Japanese by and large want to ensure that English texts should always stress the
primacy of Japanese culture and language. Integration into English (Western) culture is discouraged (Hashimoto, 2007; Yim, 2007). The case of
Japan illustrates the clear tensions between succumbing to the pressure of global trends, and English
dominance, and retaining loyalty to local traditions and language.
Framework --- Debates Good/Perm for FW
Debates for the purpose of identifying polices in the neoliberally dominated world are good
--- that’s the plan --- the plan allows the problems rooted in linguicism to be identified
Consequently one might argue that policy-practice issues in comparative education research remain an important
area of scholarship, and certainly in the Asia-Pacific region under purview here there is a rich research tradition pointing to complexity as well as to
universal issues. But still more micro-level studies, and policy-practice studies, are desirable to highlight the
inequities, the contradictions, and the complexities of how language and education play out in a local
or national landscape pervaded by global influences and neo-liberal economic policies. The nature of
comparative education research is such that these tensions when elucidated, lead to needed debates
over local issues that will result in real understanding in the global and local contexts
English Inevitable --- Engrained in Humans
Its colonized in the consciousness --- psychologically engrained ideologies means that
the alt fails because imperialist tendencies are inevitable
2008)//chiragjain
English is the most widely used language for international and intercultural
1. Dominance of English as Neo-colonialism It is often said that
communication. A number of linguists, in fact, report on the global spread of English, indicating the dominant status of English as the most prevalent language of today. Ammon, for example, points out the
dominance of English by providing same statistics about the dominance of English. According to him, (1) English has the greatest number of speakers reaching as many as 1.5 billion people; (2) English is designated as official
languages of as many as 62 nations; (3) English is the most dominant language in scientific communication with 70-80 percent of academic publications being published in it; (4) English is the de facto official and working language in
most international organizations; (5) English is the most taught foreign language across the world (Ammon, 1992:78-81). English is indeed the most dominant language and operates as a common medium for international
English is also the "hegemonic" and "neocolonialist" language, creating not

communication. However, because it is the most dominant,
only the structure of linguistic and communicative inequality and discrimination between speakers of
English and speakers of other languages, but also indirect rule over many aspects of their lives . The use of English has
been taken for granted in most international interactions, and it has almost never been called into question. In the English-dominated Western academic community, the use of English has never been perceived as the problematic,
as far as I know. Strangely enough, international and intercultural communication studies are quite indifferent to the dominance of English, while Socio linguistics centers on the objective description of the spread of English and
thus legitimates the function of English as an international language. I have been attempting to critically examine the dominance of English as the problematic in international communication (Tsuda, 1986, 1990, 1992, 1993a,
dominance of English causes serious consequences which include : (1) linguistic and communicative inequality
1993b, 1994, 1996). I have found that the
colonization of the
to a great disadvantage of the speakers of languages other than English; (2) discrimination against the non-English-speaking people and those who are not proficient in English; and (3)
consciousness of the non-English-speakers, causing them to develop linguistic, cultural, and

psychological dependency upon, and identification with, the English, its culture and people.
English Inevitable --- Engrained in Society
English is inevitably the dominant language --- culture, globalization, diplomacy,
trade, science, mean that the alt can’t solve
Hammond 14 --- Alex Hammond is a prolific language and travel blogger, writing for ESL – Language Travel. ESL is an award-
winning study abroad organization. He has studied linguistics and literature at the universities of Sussex and Innsbruck. (“How
did English become the world’s most widely spoken language?”, Alex Hammond, March 6, 2014, ESL Blog, http://blog.esl-
languages.com/blog/learn-languages/english/english-language-global-number-one/)//chiragjain
Five hundred years ago, between five and seven million people spoke English , almost all of them living in the
British Isles. Now, anywhere up to 1.8 billion people around the world speak English . How did this happen? The growth
of English has nothing to do with the structure of the language, or any inherent qualities, and everything to do with politics. The British
Empire After developing for almost a millennium on the British Isles, English was taken around the world by the sailors, soldiers,
pilgrims, traders and missionaries of the British Empire. By the time anything resembling a language policy was introduced, English
had already reached all corners of the globe. For example, English-speaking puritans were not the only Europeans to arrive in North America: Spanish, French, Dutch
and German were also widely spoken. All of the languages were reinforced by waves of immigration from Europe in the following centuries. British-Empire Bu tin
the process of designing a “United” States, the USA’s founders knew the importance of language for
national identity. English was the majority language and had to be encouraged. As recently as the start
of the 20th Century, several states banned the teaching of foreign languages in private schools and
homes. The U.S. Supreme Court only struck down restrictions on private language education in 1923. Even today, English is not the official language of the USA,
but there is no question that it is the dominant language in practice. And it wasn’t just America that said “hello” to English. At one
point in the early twentieth century, the British Empire expanded across almost a quarter of the world’s
surface, not including the USA. According to a popular saying, “the sun never set on the British Empire”.
Nowadays, the sun has set on the empire, but English remains an important language in every single
former colony. Gone but not forgotten In most of the British Empire, the main goal was trade so fewer Britons actually settled. This explains why English did
not come to dominate colonies in Asia and Africa, where it was the language of business, administration and education, but not the language of the people. British-
Empire-colonies To this day, English has a key administrative role in these former colonies. For a long time, access to English meant access to education, whether in
the mission schools in Africa or the first universities in India. This created an English-speaking elite in some of the world’s most populous countries, and elites are
good at self-preservation. Post-independence, many countries became officially multilingual for the first time, but the various groups needed a language for
communication with each other and with other nations. Again, that was English. English is now the dominant or official language in 75 territories: a direct legacy of
the British Empire. In countries where large settler colonies were formed, such as Australia, Canada and the USA, native languages and cultures have been pushed to
near-extinction by the presence of English. It was not the first language of European colonialism; Portuguese and Dutch left the continent earlier. And, as recently as
the 19th century, English wasn’t the world’s lingua franca (as the term suggests, French was the number one language of international communication). So
something must have happened more recently to give the language its unique international status. Without the rise of the USA in the 20th Century, the world’s
language landscape would look very different. Two world wars and the rise of the USA While
Europe was rebuilding in the years after
1945, the USA boomed. American businesses picked up where the British East India Company had left off
centuries before, taking English around the world as a language of trade. The influence of American
business, combined with the tradition of English left around the world by the British Empire, have made
English the number one language of international trade in the 21st Century. All of the world’s top
business schools now teach in English. English is now the most widely spoken foreign language in 19 of
the 25 EU Member States where it is not an official language. The 6 states where English is not number one also show the
importance of politics in language policy: Russian is the most widely spoken foreign language in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia; Croatian the most commonly spoken
in Slovenia; and Czech the most widely spoken in Slovakia. But the cultural legacy of the post-war decades is also very important to the growth of English as a world
language. As well as sending money across the Atlantic, the USA
provided the soundtrack through rock and roll, jazz and,
later, disco and hip hop. Hollywood movies became global sensations and American television series
became cultural reference points. American culture was everywhere, radiating confidence and success; just the things for a
world that had been ravaged by war. It wasn’t just American music that brought English into the world’s discotheques and homes. British bands including the
Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Queen, Pink Floyd, the Police or Led Zeppelin ensured that Britannia ruled the airwaves, if not the waves. The hippy movement came
from San Francisco and London. Music festivals including the Isle of Wight and Woodstock became iconic for a whole generation, whether English speakers or not.
This “soft power” continues today… English is “cool” Advertisers pride themselves on riding the cultural
zeitgeist; creating consumer desire through making products sexy. One of the ways they do this is
through using English words. Check out Der Spiegel’s German examples, La Razon’s Spanish examples, Slate.fr’s French ones and La Repubblica’s
Italian ones. Now-hiring Many examples of English in advertising come from multinational companies , who wish to keep
their message consistent across markets, but some examples are local firms looking for that elusive element of glamour
that English can bring. Of course, this happens in English too: haute couture and Eau de Toilette sound much sexier untranslated. Ba nds release
their work in English to reach the largest possible audience. Film-makers too . This invisible pressure to
produce creative works in English adds to the cultural momentum the language developed in the second
half of the Twentieth Century. The style-conscious language of extreme sports is English: snowboarders ollie, fakie and rodeo whether they are
Canadian, Swiss or Japanese. The word “cool” itself has been assimilated into various languages. Science & Technology The global power of the
USA coincided with the birth of popular computing , and English is the language of the technological
revolution and the internet. Consider a keyboard for example; they are designed for Latin characters, so
speakers of Asian languages (particularly) use complicated techniques to enter words. What happens
inside the devices is also dominated by English. The USA remains the most innovative technological
nation and, because of the language policy of the nation’s founders, English is the dominant language.
Pull not push Apart from the efforts of some early colonisers, hundreds of years ago, the success of English has more to do with “pull” than “push”. People in
British colonies who wanted an education would receive that education in English. Artists who want to
reach the largest audience for their work can do that in English. If you want to trade internationally, you
will need to speak English. And you don’t have to speak English to have a successful career, but it certainly helps. Will English remain number one?
Some people suggest that English has become ubiquitous because it is “easy to learn” or especially flexible, but a
glance backwards suggests that this is irrelevant . Despite a devilishly complex case system, Latin was Europe’s most influential language
for over a thousand years (and its descendents are still going strong). People learned Latin then for the same reasons they learn English now: to get ahead in life and
have access to knowledge. Yet
now Latin is only spoken by priests and scholars. Languages and borders change
over time, but English is likely to remain the world’s number one language during our lifetimes.
English Inevitable --- Globalization
English globalization is inevitable – it has seeped into every fabric of society –
alternative is impossible
Johnson, 9 (Anne, an international-education administrator at the Foreign Studies University in Beijing,
published in The Macalester/Maastricht Essays, “The Rise of English: The Language of Globalization in
China and the European Union” http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1447&context=macintl, //VZ)
I. Introduction
It is everywhere. Some 380 million people speak it as their first language and perhaps two-thirds as
many again as their second. A billion are learning it, about a third of the world’s population are in some
sense exposed to it and by 2050, it is predicted, half the world will be more or less proficient in it. It is
the language of globalisation—of international business, politics and diplomacy. It is the language of
computers and the Internet. You’ll see it on posters in Cote d’Ivoire, you’ll hear it in pop songs in Tokyo,
you’ll read it in official documents in Phnom Penh. Deutsche Welle broadcasts in it. Bjork, an Icelander,
sings in it. French business schools teach in it. It is the medium of expression in cabinet meetings in
Bolivia. Truly, the tongue spoken back in the 1300s only by the ‘low people’ of England, as Robert of Gloucester put it at the time, has come a long way. It is now the global language. “A
World Empire by Other Means: The Triumph of English,” The Economist As academic analyses of globalization increase in number, it is ever
more important to examine the drivers behind this phenomenon, the factors that influence it, and the
manifestations it produces in everyday life. A pertinent example of all three dynamics, the worldwide advance of the English language is
important to study not only in its own right, but also for its potential to deepen our understanding of
globalization and of the possibilities of creating a more equitable, tolerant, and ethically responsible
world. Surprisingly, precious little academic and policy attention has been directed to the rise of the English language, especially in regionally specific contexts.1 But as a proxy site for the very issues I have been studying as
an International Studies and Anthropology double major, the subject seemed a perfect fit for my research as a participant in the Globalization in Comparative Perspective program through the Macalester College Institute for Global
Citizenship. Thus, in this year of inquiry about globalization, I have asked: With the goal of cosmopolitanism in mind, should we see the advance of the English language worldwide as a positive or a negative development? In
three paradoxes of thought regarding the status of English as a so-called

seeking to answer this admittedly absolutist question, I have identified
lingua franca. Each of these conflicts is interlinked with the others, and all allude to the staggering
complexity of the “English phenomenon.” After outlining these three major paradoxes, I present two case studies in order to put the issues described in the first half of the essay
into local context. The case studies draw on ethnographic fieldwork I conducted in the fall semester with young-
adult English students in Beijing, China ; a series of informal interviews with adult English students in Maastricht, the Netherlands, during the spring; and on literature-based research
conducted throughout the year. I conclude by suggesting some normative steps for mitigating the negative and augmenting the positive effects of the language’s spread.
Tsuda – Thesis Wrong
Tsuda is wrong – English opens up avenues for opportunities
Burns, 11 (Kevin, teacher and writer; teaches at Tokai University and has also taught at Columbia
College and Kwantlen Polytechnic University, http://www.how-to-teach-english-in-japan.com/esl-
discussions.html, //VZ)
Tsuda argues: “English has its dark side that represents ruthless power.” Tsuda doesn`t feel that
In his ESL Discussions,
having English skills is important for Japanese, (even though, he himself went to a lot of trouble to get
them.) Though I am an English teacher, I have always felt that Esperanto the international language designed to bridge the gap between peoples, was the fairest way to go. It hasn`t been widely used, accepted, nor studied however. What have people like Tsuda done to
Tsuda makes my
promote it? I haven`t done a thing. I am happy to teach English and feel it is the best option under the present circumstances. Unless every government in the world were to start teaching Esperanto from kindergarten, things will not change.
point, that students who study English will have an advantage over everyone else in the work force . I do
not see this as a problem However he does. . It will lead to He feels it will lead to a new kind of social discrimination between English speakers and non-speakers. I agree.
preferential treatment for English speakers he cries What he calls "social discrimination," I call .
opportunity Japanese who can envision the future will prosper, but it is best to act now and have your
.
children study English. Nissan has insisted that all board meetings and important
ESL Discussions - Japanese Companies & English Study
business meetings be conducted in English. English Nissan`s non-Japanese speaking COO insisted upon this. The company increased support for English lessons and the ability to speak
became an important job qualification for managers. Isuzu once owned its own English school (Crops
Create), to brush up the skills of their employees. Fuji Photo Film and Mitsubishi
before ultimately selling it off. They used it
Chemical where I have taught, makes English very important for those who may travel abroad. Employees of these two
At Johnson (Japan), being a subsidiary of the American

companies, must of course, attain a high degree of English skill before they can go on business trips or be transferred abroad.
giant, English of course was important for Japanese managers. The above has gone on for many years . So
it was not exactly news when Fast Retailing (Unikiro), and Rakuten made a splash in the Japanese media
when they announced they were making English their official in-house language. This really isn`t big
news. It has been an ongoing process of internationalization in Japan for many years. I Some companies recognize it before others.
think it was great though, as these Japanese companies obviously understand where the future of the
world is going. Perhaps by "making it," news, it will be a good thing for the further internationalization
of Japan . A country that lacks it in my opinion.
Tsuda – Institutions Coopt Alternative
Tsuda is W-R-O-N-G!!!! Even if he’s right, institutions like the Japanese
government co-opt any alternatives
Burns, 11 (Kevin, teacher and writer; teaches at Tokai University has also taught at Columbia College
and Kwantlen Polytechnic University, http://www.how-to-teach-english-in-japan.com/esl-
discussions.html, //VZ)
On ESL Questions, University of Tsukuba professor, Yukio Tsuda feels Japanese should stop glorifying English and English speakers. Japanese
need to treat their own language and people with more respect. “A slave who doesn`t feel his enslavement is a `happy slave,` a product of the ultimate form of domination. I see a parallel between him and Japan,” says Tsuda. I
don`t feel anyone has forced Japanese to study English other than the Japanese government and
school boards themselves. America and other countries have not forced Japan to learn English as
Tsuda seems to indicate. Furthermore, Japanese themselves have seen the importance of English and
chosen to brush up their skills. ESL Questions - is it Fair the English Speakers have an Advantage? The world is not fair, the sooner we recognize that, the better. It is true that
native English speakers have an advantage in debate, negotiation, sales and other aspects, if the playing
field is in English. That said, young Japanese have many years to brush up their skills, and the
government can do much more to make the English learning program from kindergarten on up, much,
much better.
Tsuda – Alt Fails + Causes War
Japan’s internationalization dooms Tsuda’s alternative – which only causes war and
instability
Burns, 11 (Kevin, teacher and writer; teaches at Tokai University and owns Kevin`s English Schools in
Kanagawa, Japan. Has also taught at Columbia College and Kwantlen Polytechnic University,
http://www.how-to-teach-english-in-japan.com/esl-discussions.html, //VZ)
The Japanese government have been preaching their commitment to internationalism , (meanwhile you struggle to comprehend how to
get to the shrine in Nikko because there are no signs in English, (it is all kanji), and you struggle to understand the museum exhibit at a museum that tourists frequent for the same reason.) In many ways this commitment to being international has been words without substance. Rakuten
and Fast Retailing simply realize the nature of the world today, and Japan`s standing in it. If you don`t want to be stuck on an assembly line in a Japanese factory, the future at least partly, lies with brushing up your English skills. Many young ambitious Japanese will find their future in the
BRIC countries of: Brazil, Russia, India, and China. Chinese and Russian study are also great options for young ambitious Japanese. Why restrict yourself to only thinking of working in Japan .
As a young lad I didn`t and left my home for Japan where it seemed I had more opportunities. Within two years I was making as much or more than most of my friends and working less hours for it. Young, smart, Japanese see the same opportunities I did as a young lad, abroad, and more
English will always increase one`s opportunities throughout the world. A closed Japan is a thing
power to them for that.
of the past, whether people like Tsuda realize it or not. The world has changed. The internet, travel,
and better education have helped to change it. Natural human curiosity about other peoples and
further, international marriage and the progeny of those marriages have helped to seal it. Japan is
becoming an international nation; not because of any government policy, but because the whole world
is coming together, (whether individuals like Tsuda like it or not. ) It seems to be a human trait that we will bridge our differences somehow or someway, and come
It is in this way we will solve problems and end war.

together. having English as the de facto I hope for all the faults and the unfairness of
world language the good of it will be world peace and solving worldwide dilemmas together in a true
, that
spirit of international cooperation. The trouble is worth the goal.

If Japanese or others have to spend a little extra time studying to accomplish that, then so be it.
Lingua Franca Good --- Science
Lingua franca status of English and its hegemony is necessary to effective science ---
and it doesn’t cause abandonment
Montgomery 9 --- a geologist, independent scholar and adjunct faculty member in the Jackson School of International
Studies and Honors Program, University of Washington. He has written widely on topics in scientific communication, the history
of science, science and art, contemporary culture and translation. BA in English from Knox College and an MS in geological
sciences from Cornell University. (“English and Science: realities and issues for translation in the age of an expanding lingua
franca”, Scott L. Montgomery, 2009, The Journal of Specialized Translation,
http://www.jostrans.org/issue11/art_montgomery.php)//chiragjain
Scientists do not see things in these terms. They very much view themselves as linguistic actors, not as
victims, the linguistically enslaved For them, a global language is needed for an ever-more globalised
.
scientific enterprise it is also, and much more, an origin of opportunity Linguistic diversity is
. If a source of 'burden' in training, .
inevitable, given human dimensions the the final aim of any to science; linguistic nationalism or chauvinism (if you will) makes little sense, for a very practical and specific reason—
scientific work is to share its results with as much of the disciplinary community as possible (ever-more globalised) . A common
language obviously makes this not merely efficient, but far more possible. Unlike in literature, a self-contained 'national science,' epistemologically speaking, is largely self-negating today (a term like 'French astronomy' refers mainly to institutional and social structures, not to some innate
scientists
and hermetic form of knowledge). Those consistently make four comments First, they say it
with whom I have discussed these kinds of issues (and there have been many) .
is essential that science in the mother tongue be maintained , to enrich the language and to keep
knowledge available to as much of the population as possible Second learning English is wholly . , despite this,
required, as it grants someone direct access to their field of study, nothing less. Without it, they would
be hopelessly disconnected Third, acquiring English is partly a
, banished to a rural presence (in reality, they would be reliant on any translations that might be made).
burden, an extra skill that requires no minor labour, but a skill with many gleaming edges, many opportunities that cut in several directions—for example the ability to study abroad, engage in international research projects, represent one’s work to
Fourth and finally, being competent in English does not force these scientists to abandon
foreign media and publics.
their mother tongue, whether at home or in the hallways, but makes them feel they are participating
members in the international community of their discipline, and also high-level professionals among
their own national peers too two types of identities that do not conflict, but wholly overlap Such
( ). are powerful
arguments cannot be dismissed lightly

. They , as examples of benighted or deceived perception. What do they signify for translation—or 'transfer,' as we’ve termed it? That it will expand in proportion to the expansion of
Indeed, a lingua franca of science, by lowering the need for translation on the official level,
both science and English.
actually increases its activity in many other ways, as discussed above Yet this identification with English .
that these scientists express also implies a number of important questions that do
—and thus the power to translate/transfer science—
have commerce with academic discussion about 'diversity.' At what point Some of these questions have not yet been widely noted. Here are a few: , practically
does allegiance to one’s mother tongue in science actually begin to conflict with use of English(es) as
speaking,
a lingua franca in this domain to what degree does it suggest that there could develop a true
? If there is such a 'limit,'
geopolitics of language in science, one that coexisted with English as a lingua franca Would such a ?
geopolitics of language be enhanced by the new era of resurgent nationalism now engaged by , or even predicated upon,
the world’s major powers How might this play out for translation in science, whether
(China, Russia, Japan, France, Brazil, etc.)?
formal or informal As it is often said that the prestige of English worldwide is linked to the standing of
?
the United States, what could be the effect, long-term, were U.S. power and economic capability to
decline significantly? Does the dominance of English in science have such momentum, at this point, that
its future has become inevitable? History seems to tell us that the world needs , a lingua , or at the least makes good use of
franca in science Nearly all the periods of greatest advance

. —ancient Greece; the imperial age of Rome (for engineering, if not for theoretical science); Tang Dynasty China; medieval
depended deeply on the medium of a unifying, shared language

Islam; early modern Europe; and today— . To take but one example, Arabic between the 8th and 10th centuries
acted as a great transformative medium into which were translated scientific works from Greek, Syriac, Persian and Sanskrit, allowing Islamic scholars to first synthesise, then advance the intellectual bounty from a host of cultures, producing what eventually became, as a result of its
Each of the noted eras was also a period of

selective rendering into Latin in the 12th and 13th centuries, an essential foundation for the growth of universities in Europe and the Scientific Revolution itself.
massive translation, into the lingua franca as well as from it This is precisely what is happening today and .
will continue to happen. As many of the world’s nations advance economically and technologically and
thus a greater and greater majority of the world’s scientists operate in a foreign language (English),
translation will become an even more central communicational aspect. And here we come full circle. For the reality of all this growing translation activity, whether
it involve summarising a talk for a friend or having one’s own papers professionally rendered into English, makes it plain that this lingua franca is not really 'foreign' after all. Scientists, engineers, doctors who use English in their work participate vitally in this language too and in its
The general assumption, lingering behind many smoky discussions about
dissemination; they are not unwilling 'aliens' to English and it is not 'alien' to them.
'hegemony,' that non-native speakers are somehow 'immigrants' into the community of Englishes,
should perhaps be abandoned. English belongs to all who actively use it, who help invigorate it, employ
it as a communicational skill. ), I feel it would be
As someone who has written about these sorts of issues while looking through the telescope of history (Montgomery 2000; 2004
unfortunate and impoverishing were all types of formal scientific publication to take place in one
tongue, even one with many varieties. Translation is a vital form of nourishment to both source and
target languages The world and science need this two-way
—the great eras when knowledge has moved between cultures in the past show this beyond all doubt.
exchange English has become dominant in science and technology over time for
, whose effects can be both overt and quite subtle.
more reasons than commonly noted . The power and influence of the British Empire, then the great success of American capitalism and popular culture, do not answer very well the question: why English in science? British
scientific achievement in the 17th century, the so-called Scientific Revolution, created a major new literature, mainly in English (not Latin), that grew enormously and rapidly upon itself and was subsequently expanded beyond measure by the achievements (and supporting engineering
literature) of the Industrial Revolution. Well before the 20th century, access to much of modern science meant reading what had been written in the English language or direct translations from it. French and German were potent competitors for a time, but historically arrived late and
he story of scientific English appears today as a global reality of

were eclipsed after WWII by the advent of 'big science' spearheaded by research in the U.S. T
knowledge transfer At
. Fortunately, German and Chinese biochemists or cosmologists will not stop speaking German and Chinese to each other, even if they publish their research in English, a language in which they participate as professional users.
many levels, linguistic diversity will remain intact translation in varied form will more . Whatever the geopolitics of language may bring,
than ever be at the unacknowledged core of global scientific communication.

Linguistic Imperialism K - Michigan7 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Linguistic Imperialism K - Michigan7 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Linguistic Imperialism Kritik --- FFRSV

Impact Level of this kritik ----

Same for aff arguments for those^

Everything else you need is in this file!!

The politics of privatization is that dismantling government means

dismantling accountability; the politics of neoliberalism treats politics as a business proposition, or

The accounts of terrorism for the public and for

One view is a Jihad

Remote control via remote sensing satellites, unmanned drones

The right to language" primarily

ore recently Lee (2004, pp. 45–49) reported on the

Feng commented that these tests “have been nationally perceived

Students are expected to successfully work through nine graduated

proficiency levels of English universities

As noted above, there are regional and urban

it is also bound up with aspects of global relations, such as spread of capitalism,

Globalization" in a more concrete

symbolic power requires, as a condition for its

What is under way is a much more actively driven process of linguistic

In other words, universities should no longer be seen as a

Research and education reinforces linguistic imperialism

to the attempt to dominate globally through economic means: ‘The American

academia serves to legitimate the thrust for

English is not merely an instrument for communication, it is a value one identifies

Language is a central dimension of ideological control, perpetuating the subordination of

The aff’s method of translation and defense of translation results in linguistic

By way of translation, a universalizing-or Orientalizing-'effort is

re-classification in the light of a makeshift

Neather also proposes one other

The undesirability of translating the literal meaning into English is

not necessarily impeded by a substantial use of transliterations. A second argument against

In recent translation studies research, transliteration as a means of preserving cultural

its potentials as an alternative or a counter-strategy, are keenly explored.

The second main reason is that it is the language of clarity and

Rotary International is another good

The planning process started in the Council on Foreign Relations,

The right to language" primarily

This principle also guided my definition of

The first is the top-down

process of what a state, or combination of states, or an institution such as a corporation or a university,

Analysis of the interlocking of

The rapid succession from a neoliberal to an imperial project yields a combine of

English contributes to the imperial production of subjectivities , through communicative networks,

monolingualism in English may be a

Depletion is usually assumed to be linear, when it is now evident

Imposed austerity means that poorer countries have

It is only when states and other interests

The aff’s justification of neoliberal imperialism leads to commodification of culture

The politics of privatization is that dismantling government means

dismantling accountability; the politics of neoliberalism treats politics as a business proposition, or

Fudging data and deception

The accounts of terrorism for the public and for

One view is a Jihad

Remote control via remote sensing satellites, unmanned drones

efforts were made by their members or invited guests to hammer similar

A supplementary argument was

that employees ‘speak the language of customer service’, which,

This emphasis on spoken English, near-native fluency and even ‘nuance’ is

English was assigned an

intrinsic, absolute value. : ‘Cheap English doesn’t go with

since English is taken to be the ‘universal’ language, there is no need to

The second closure arises from

importance of learning English was stressed again.