Jarosova 1

Pavla Jarošová 264079

Bernadette Nadya Jaworsky, Ph. D.

SOC 787 Cultural Sociology

18 June, 2012

ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA: How did it get there?

For my final essay, I have chosen a quite complicated topic, that is "how has English

become a new lingua franca?" I have been thinking about this topic ever since I started to get

more and more familiar with English and David Crystal, as I have found out, answers this

question in a beautiful and elegant way (2003:29) : "There are two answers to the question:

one is geographical-historical; the other is socio-cultural. The geo-historical answer shows

how English reached a position of pre-eminence [...]. The socio-cultural answer explains why

it remains so.

In my essay, I would like to focus on the socio-historical part of the answer, that is

some aspects of colonization and post-colonialism; and how did the English spread and

achieved its supremacy. However, the application of the term lingua franca for the current

worldwide state of English is not precisely accurate, as Juliane House explains in the

introduction of her essay (2003:557):

In its original meaning, a lingua franca – the term comes from Arabic ´lisan-alfarang´-

was simply an intermediary language used by speakers of Arabic with travellers from

Western Europe. Its meaning was later extended to describe a language of commerce,

a rather stable variety with little room for individual variation. This meaning is clearly

not applicable to today´s global English, whose major characteristics are its functional

flexibility and its spread across many different domains. These two features have led
 Jarosova 2

to another new and indeed remarkable feature: that the number of non-native speakers

is substantially larger than its native speakers (the relationship is about four to one, cf.

Graddol 1997).

First, I would like to explain my relationship with English and why is it so important

for me. My relationship with English has begun when I started attending high school. I did not

particularly like it at school when I was younger, but everything has changed for me when I

was thirteen and I have visited my family in Canada. I have learned that English is very useful

tool for communication and I have slowly, but surely, started to explore its beauty. English as

such has gradually gripped me to such extent that I have eventually decided it to be my field

of study and future career. For me, English means an access to a wide variety of information I

could never access without its knowledge, an easy way to communicate with wide range of

people, with my English skills, I do not feel lost in today´s world. I perceive the using of

English in global as a positive thing. Surely, its non-critical use can lead to simplification and

extinction of small languages, but this progress (or process) is all natural on every level and

the linguistic patterns work in the same ways ever since. If there was not for English, there

would be some other language to overbalance the others. In my essay, I will try to see English

through post-colonial lens to narrow my field of research. I would like to point out and

explain some of the processes which have led and are still leading to the establishment of

English as a lingua franca and which reinforce its position nowadays. My research question

"how" is in many ways inseparable from the question "why".

In a broader perspective, it is quite useful to use a strong program lens. The process of

the spread of English is a manifestation of general cultural patterns which came into being in

the last fifty years, it is an expression of patterns and factors which have never been here

before, the most obvious of them being an Internet. Although I will focus more on the socio-

historical, colonial and post-colonial point of view, all the factors which work together and
 Jarosova 3

help the English language to gain a head, are important and inseparable. With the study of this

issue inevitably comes the study of all the cultural and social conditions, processes and

consequences. The strong program sees language as a sense-making activity which is very

close to the approach to the culture as a meaning-making activity. This is described by Lynn

Spillman (2002:4):

Many of these confusions and disputes can be resolved if we consider "culture" as

referring to processes of meaning-making - such processes may operate in different

sorts of social locations (in more specialized arenas or more generally) and may be

evident in all sorts of social practices and social products. The central concerns of

those who study culture are to understand processes of meaning-making, to account

for different meanings, and to examine their effects in social life.

The other definition of culture and language is offered by the strong programmers by Jeffrey

C. Alexander as follows (2003:13).

The argument here is that scientific ideas are cultural and linguistic conventions as

much as they are simply the results of other, more ‘objective’ actions and procedures.

Rather than only “findings” that hold up a mirror to nature (Rorty l979), science is

understood as a collective representation, a language game that reflects a prior pattern

of sense-making activity. [...] Commitment to a cultural-sociological theory that

recognizes cultural autonomy is the single most important quality of a strong program.

Drawing on Paul Ricoeur and Kenneth Burke, Clifford Geertz (1973) has worked

harder than any other person to show that culture is a rich and complex text, with a

subtle patterning influence on social life. The result is a compelling vision of culture as

webs of significance that guide action.

 Jarosova 4

Strong program emphasizes a sociological theory that recognizes cultural autonomy

which is very important in the study of language. Through language, in our case English and

its spread, it is possible to distinguish and describe other, generally true social processes. One

of the ways by which English has achieved it supremacy is the simple fact that it has always

been a language of elite, of the nobility. The question of setting the standards by the nobility

was one of the questions which were of Pierre Bourdieu´s interest. In the essay called

Sociolinguistics and Sociology: Current Directions, Future Partnerships, Christine Mallinson

notes that, according to Pierre Bourdieu (2009:1037):

In his theory, elites hold the power to set the cultural standard. They help

institutionalize dominant culture as prestigious and other forms of culture as having

low status, setting distinctions that become a basis for categorizing and excluding

others. Over time, these cultural distinctions come to be seen as natural, helping

organize the social world into seemingly objective social classes. Language is viewed

as integral to creating status distinctions that center on cultural capital, which Bourdieu

(1984) defined as tools legitimated and valued by the dominant culture. In keeping

with Bourdieu´s theory, sociolinguists and sociologists have explored the relationship

between language standards and social inequality.

The setting of cultural standards is something which has always one of the main

characteristics of English and British people, respectively. Bourdieu, in his essay Distinction:

A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, writes (1984:1).

Whereas the ideology of charisma regards taste in legitimate culture as a gift of nature,

scientific observation shows that all cultural practices (museum visits, concert-going,

reading etc.), and preferences in literature, painting or music, are closely linked to
 Jarosova 5

educational level (measured by qualifications or length of schooling) and secondarily

to social origin.

From a general point of view, Bourdieu´s words above can be applied for English and

the role it has played and plays as a cultural practice.

So, how did English become a global language? As David Crystal notes in his book

(2003:7): "Why a language becomes a global language has little to do with the number of

people who speak it. It is much more to do with who those speakers are." This is one and

very important factor which has contributed to the spreading of English as a global language.

To partially answer one part of the question "how", I can say that English has become a global

language through the economic, military and social supremacy of the British. In other part of

his book, David Crystal supports this idea as follows (2003:10):

By the beginning of the nineteenth century, Britain had become the world´s leading

industrial and trading country. By the end of the century, the population of the USA

(then approaching 100 million) was larger than that any of the countries of western

Europe, and its economy was the most productive and the fastest growing in the world.

British political imperialism had sent English around the globe, during the nineteenth

century so that it was a language ´on which the sun never sets´. During the twentieth

century, this world presence was maintained and promoted almost single-handedly

through the economic supremacy of the new American superpower. Economics

replaced politics as the chief driving force. And the language behind the US dollar was

English.

Generally said, this is very much true, but today´s situation is much more complex

and also complicated. English today is used for educational, diplomatic, medical and other

purposes, but that is not going to be of my main interest. So, when did the spreading of
 Jarosova 6

English start? According to David Crystal, it has been as the beginning of the seventeenth

century (2003:30-31):

Between the end of the reign of Elizabeth I (1603) and the beginning of the reign of

Elizabeth II (1952), this figure1 increased almost fiftyfold, to some 250 million, the

vast majority living outside the British Isles.

The colonization, or the British part of the colonization, started in the seventeenth century. It

was driven by economical, political and social reasons. Colonization has forever changed the

image of the world, and use of English was one of the ways how to gain power over the

oppressed nation, but also as a process of a whole new meaning-making process. This is

nicely described in David Nieto´s essay whose words I am going to use and comment on

(2007:232):

Language cannot be reduced to a mechanic device with which objects and subjects are

neutrally transformed into words and arranged as disinterested social conventions.

Precisely, the bridge between the individual and the world is built through the

meaning-making process that communication entails. That meaning, which comes

embedded in language, serves as the conceptual material with which human beings

construct and deconstruct their representations of the world. [...] Aware of all these

elements, and as path of the process of colonization, the colonizer endeavours to

redefine the world and present it as a fixed reality to which the oppressed must adapt.

It is at that moment that the conceptual maps of the colonized must be modified, where

the myths about the colonizer´s superiority must be ingrained in their representation of

the world. it is absolutely necessary, in order to complete such extensive invasion, to

be in command of the bridges of meaning-making. The dominant language then

becomes the criterion against which the level of civilization of the colonized is going
1
Reffering to the number of English speakers, that was 5-7 million in the sixteenth century.
 Jarosova 7

to be measured. Having learnt that the existence and dialect of the dark-skinned is the

incarnation of the bad, and that one can only hate it, the colonized then has to face the

fact that "I am dark-skinned, I have an accent." At these crossroads there seems to be

only one possible solution, namely, becoming part of the superior, being one of them,

speak their language.

To speak the oppressor´s language has often been the question of survival. The

enforcement of English in the colonized countries has gone hand in hand with the

enforcement of the other cultural and social habits and norms and it has been the tool and an

indicator of the success of this change. David Nieto notes to this (2007:232-233):

Such invasion of the human spirit, such painful process of forced adherence and

identification with the oppressor´s version of the world, causes two indelible marks in

the spirits of the colonised according to Fanon (1967). On the one hand, the feeling of

inferiority,for the reason that even once assimilated, the colonized are never

considered equals, and they are continuously reminded of their lack of capabilities; on

the other hand, the dependency complex, which assaults those who have traded all

their values in the attempt to treasure proof of their humanity, those who have learnt to

despise their origins, and later find themselves without a home.

English has become so important also because the colonized nations were forced to

use it in the first generations and the subsequent generations naturally continued in its using.

They would not be able to participate in the everyday life of the state if they did not know the

official language of the colonizers, in our case, English. Nieto again notes to this (2007:234):

Language is the entry to participation in the social discourse, which leads to

membership in society at large. By not having the possibility to participate plainly in

and of the standard discourse, the individual is strategically excluded of the decision-
 Jarosova 8

making process and, secluded in silence, becomes an easy prey to be reduced to

servitude, dehumanised, and blamed for the entire social blemishes.

I think that the colonization was in many ways an unhealthy process which has suppressed the

native cultures and languages of the colonized nations. It is, on one hand, today very

comfortable for English-speaking tourists when they come to a former colony and they are

able to communicate with locals. On the other hand, the post-colonial situation is really

complicated. These complications are very well described in the essay by A. Suresh

Canagarajah (2005:419):

To adopt a broad-lens perspective, these dilemnas reflect to some extent the effects of

the tensions between two major historical movements on many communities in the

post-colonial world today: decolonization and globalization. While non-Western

communities are busy working on one project (decolonization), the carpet has been

pulled from under their feet by another (globalization). It is as if one historical process

was subsumed by another before the process was complete. Or it appears as if one

movement was subverted by the other. There are significant differences in the project

of both movements. Decolonization typically entails resisting English and other

colonial languages in favour of building an autonomous nation-state; globalization has

made the borders of the nation-state porous and reinserted the importance of English

language for all communities, through multinational production and marketing

relationships, pop culture, cyber space, and digital technology. Apart from pressures,

the nation-state is facing from outside, it is also facing pressures from within. The

claims of diverse social groups and ethnic communities within the nation-state have

become more assertive. Post-modern conditions have also created certain significant

changes in discourse, calling for a different orientation to language and political rights.

People are not prepared to think of their identities in essentialist terms (as belonging
 Jarosova 9

exclusively to one language or culture), their languages and cultures as pure (separated

from everything foreign), and their communities as homogenous (closed for contact

with others).

The postcolonial situation is obviously unenviable. It is really complicated for the inhabitants

of the postcolonial countries to redefine, claim and accept their own culture. I have moved

from the English acquiring an important position as a world language to this sociological

issue. However, I think that it is really important to think of English and also other colonizing

languages from this point of view. I do not know what should be done in this issue, but it is

an important and undeniable part of history and of today´s world. To sum up, English has

achieved its special position, from a socio-historical point of view, with the contribution of

following factors: British colonization, British social, political and economical supremacy, the

natural human´s desire to explore foreign countries and nations. The way how it is acquiring

its position in today´s world is also one of the consequences of the colonization. It is quite

popular to complain about the globalization, but in this, I agree with Jan Blommaert

(2003:611):

It is a regrettable feature of much discourse on globalization that it seems to present

globalization as the creation of worldwide uniformity. Processes are often represented

generically, as a universal shift in the nature of societies, semiosis or identities. Terms

such as ´global flow´ suggest a flow across the whole of the globe, a generalized

spread of sociocultural and economic patterns, a new universalism. In our field of

study, some recent work on discourse in the late-modern world falls prey to this.

Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999). for instance, suggest that the conditions for the

production and circulation of discourse (in general, without qualification) have

changed in the present world. Both the nature of signs and discourses as well as their

distribution, access and effects have undergone substantial transformations, and

 Jarosova 10

´discourse´ is now a different concept. [...] What is seen as ĺate-modern discourse´is a

new genre, a new variety of language, spread across the globe in the ways mentioned

above: as a specific genre, and across specific groups of people in specific contexts.

Today,the position of English is reinforced every day, it has become a universal

language for education, science, and, among others, of the Internet. Its face and position in the

world changes every day. I really like its universality and easy usage, but I do not like and

support the penetration of the individual English words into Czech language. I know it is an

inevitable consequence of the contact between two and more languages, but I would

appreciate if people could talk "just" Czech or "just" English. However, I am really looking

forward for the future evolution of English and what is going to happen in this field of study.
 Jarosova 11

Sources:

Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2003. The Meanings of Social Life: A Cultural Sociology. New York,
Oxford university press.

Blommaert, Jan. 2003. "Commentary: A sociolinguistics of globalization". Journal of

sociolinguistics 7/4: 607-623. (Retrieved from wileyonlinelibrary.com on May 25, 2012.)

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Introduction from: Distinction:A Social Critique of the Judgement of
Taste. Pp 1-7. Translated by Richard Nice.

Canagarajah, Suresh A. 2005. "Dilemnas in planning English/vernacular relations in post-

colonial communities". Journal of Sociolinguitics. 9/3: 418-447. (Retrieved from
wileyoninelibrary.com on 25 May, 2012).

Crystal, David. 2003. English as a Global Language. New York, Cambridge university press.

House, Juliane. 2003. "English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism?" Journal of

Sociolinguistics 7/4: 556-578. (Retrieved from wileyonlinelibrary.com on 23 May, 2012).

Mallinson, Christine. 2009. "Sociolingustics and Sociology: Current Directions, Future

Partnerships." Language and Linguistics Compass 3/4: 1034-1051. (Retrieved from
wileyonlinelibrary.com on 15 June, 2012).

Nieto, David Gonzalez. 2007. "The Emperor´s New Words: Language and Colonization."
Human architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-knowledge. V, special double issue:
231-238. (Retrieved from http://www.okcir.com/Articles%20V%20Special/DavidNieto.pdf
on May 25, 2012.)

Spilmann, Lyn. 2002. "Introduction: Culture and Cultural sociology." Pp. 1-15 in Cultural
sociology, edited by Lyn Spilmann. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.