Is the English language teaching a linguistic imperialism?

It seems evident that schools must prepare students for participation in society as citizens in the
broadest sense. Citizenship in modern society, however, demands other competences than previously.
Nowadays a competent citizenship needs to be equipped with ability to communicate in English in order
to express his ideas, thoughts and feelings and to be in contact with the world in general. Globally, we are
witnessing today a growing movement of other languages by English (Phillipson 1992). Hamel (2003)
argues that although globalization is the largest English language expansion in the history of mankind,
there is no uniformly or actually destroys other languages (Wallraff 2000). In the same sense, Ruiz (2003)
counters that in this English speaking as an "international auxiliary language and a language not replace
the other" .The truth is, however, that in recent years the number of speakers of English as a second
language or foreign language has increased dramatically. Crystal (2003) estimates that there are about 430
and 750 million people who speak English as a second language and foreign, respectively.
Nonetheless, as Canagarah (1999) describes, the insistence on standard English as the norm and
the refusal to grant an active role to the students first language in the learning and acquisition of English,
the marginalization of non-native English teachers, and the insensitive negativity shown by the
pedagogies and discourses towards the indigenous cultural traditions; it is evident that the education
system is destroying with the linguistic diversity and cultural identities. Consequently, education has
many implications for a students identity and relationships and it is important to consider: how do
teachers and students negotiate the challenges posed to their identity, community membership, and
values, by the vernacular and English? What discourses do local students and teachers confront in
teaching materials produced by center agencies; how do the agendas of the center textbooks conflict with
the personal agendas local students bring to the classroom? (Canagarah, 1999). Therefore, is highly likely
that nowadays we are under a linguistic imperialism.
The linguistic imperialism is present in all these areas, both through the way (the language used),
and through the contents (values that are transmitted with that language). The dominant language leads to
a hidden but effective form of discrimination that Skutnabb-Kangas called "linguicism". Linguicism
establishes a social division between individuals and groups under the criteria of language, distinguishing
between those with access to varying degrees the dominant language and those who ignore it. This is true
for all the key languages in each period of history, whether of the "national" languages in a given area of
the world, the former colonial languages (French, Spanish, German), or the prevailing role of English in
our current society; as Kangas (2000) describes in a clear way:
Language is used increasingly, instead of or in maintaining, legitimating, effectuating, and
reproducing an unequal division of both structural power and material resources between the
elites of the world (the A-team) and the B-team, the dominated, the ordinary people.
Thus, the perspectives of the dominant social groups, which introduce other communities to the
same value system in order to legitimize the dominance of elite groups.(Kangas,2000).

The dominant position of English today is linked to their social and economic backgrounds, to
British colonialism and the global dominance of the United States. English is not only worldwide, but
almost everything is in English. Several factors contribute to its expansion: the domain in business, the
different foreign policies of the most powerful countries (mostly English speaking), the language
planning policies for the remaining states, popular culture (with industry music and film, and companies
like McDonalds, Starbucks, etc.) Moreover, communication technology that uses the English language in
most of the the electronics and in the World Wide Web (internet.) It is not just the domain of the
language, but it means business for instance, the TOEFL or IELTS (British Council) exams which are a
mandatory requisite all over the world in order to get in a certificate that tells that you are a competent
English user or not.
The status of international language that has conquered the English responds primarily to power,
mainly political and military, as has happened for centuries with other languages. Furthermore, it requires
an economically powerful nation to maintain and stimulate the expansion of language (Crystal 2003).
It is estimated that A quarter of the worlds languages have fewer than 1,000 speakers; half have
fewer than 10,000. It is likely that most of these languages will die out in the next 50 years. (Cristal,
2003). A major impetus behind the disappearance of these small languages is the competition that they
endure with languages of wider communication, such as English. This process is often referred to as
linguistic imperialism, Phillipson (1992), and is sometimes seen as a reason to give second thought to
the rapidly growing English-language industry. Canagarajah (1999), have argued that it is possible to
resist linguistic imperialism in English language teaching by adapting teaching methods to local
cultures and traditions. Nevertheless, the right to maintain the language of ones community, and the
maintenance of linguistic diversity more generally, is recognized as a fundamental human right
(Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 2008); and there is little doubt that globalization or glocalization through
the spread of English is a contributing force behind the decline and death of local languages and cultures.
And while I personally do not believe that it is desirable, or even possible, to decelerate the growth of
English worldwide, I see as one of the challenges for world Englishes professionals in the twenty-first
century the need to consider the relationship between English and small, less powerful languages, in order
to ensure that the spread of English does not conflict with the rights of people to maintain their native
languages and cultures.
The discourse that accompanies and legitimizes the constantly increasing spread of English has
been so pervasive that this language has come to be regarded as equivalent to progress and prosperity
(Phillipson 1992). It should not, therefore, surprising that this language is postulated as the only lingua
franca ("common language" or "global language") of mankind, status, according to some authors
evaluated ( Phillipson 1992;. Boyle 2002; Wallraff 2000), English has already achieved.
English as any other dominant language is a social barrier in education, labor market and social
mobility, since it favors the elite who have it as mother tongue or can afford their study. In fact, the study
of English is enormously expensive, and is only accessible for the minority that can be paid from
childhood studies abroad or elite colleges in the country. For adults, the full command of English (or any

other "national" foreign language) is practically forbidden. The new speaker always shows problems in
their accent, vocabulary, etc. Thus we have an essentially undemocratic international linguistic situation:
the imperial language speakers are privileged from birth, while others can only achieve a comparable
level by many years of study and large outlays.
The dominance of one language over the other leads to a linguistic genocide,
which is the gradual disappearance of hundreds of languages, with all the cultural
elements that it held. As it is describe by Gldu Cala in the Journal of Indigenous
People's Rights:

peoples are thus no longer only divided into those with less access to material resources and
structural power on the basis of their skin color (race) alone but also on the basis of their
ethnicity, culture, and, again increasingly religion, and on the basis of their language (their
mother tongue(s) and their competence or lack of competence, in official and/or (international
languages). There is, then, a change from biologically argued racism and discrimination
towards culturally, ethnically argued discrimination (ethniscms) and linguistically argued
discrimination (linguicism).
Nevertheless, in the case of our country (Colombia), we can observe in languages such as Pijao
that Pijao identity has been becoming weaker and more flexible since the death of the languagethis is a
direct result of linguicide (and not modernization). (Zwisler, 2015).
This obviously favors the elites, not only often those that use "national" but also that they can
access learning English languages. Minorities, even when they manage to maintain a marginalized
language, deprived of full identification with it, unable to read or write to it. There is an enormous
cultural impoverishment, in lack of mastery of the language itself, as in the continuous foreign loan terms,
many times unnecessary. In that sense, it is important to consider some questions such as: Does English
offer third world countries a resource that will help them in their development, as Western governments
and development agencies would claim? Or is it a Trojan horse, whose effect is to perpetuate their
dependence? (Canagarahag, 1999).
As it is describe in Harpers Magazine 305 in 2002, 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 the most powerful, but that it must be absolutely powerful.
For Pierre Bourdieu (2001), globalization simply means Americanisation: Englishisation entails
symbolic imperialism and linguistic hegemony. He accuses speakers of the dominant language (currently
English, and earlier French and German) of behaving as though their symbolic forms and values are

universal. In other words, the worldwide presence of English as a lingua Americana is due to the massive
economic, cultural and military impact of the USA.
There is also a warning to continental countries which have opted to start using English as a
medium of instruction that in non-Anglophone countries recent trends to provide teaching in English
may have unforeseen consequences on the vitality of the national language. Language as a human
institution subject to historical change and open to humans collectively and consciously determining its
role in society. This poses a significant alternative not only to those who see the spread of global English
as inevitable and unstoppable. (Van Parijs,2011).
By contrary, an author such as Antonio Gramsci an interesting figure in this context for several
reasons. His conception of hegemony has been influential in the way of understanding and analyzing
how dominant groups. Part of Gramscis political and cultural critique of Manzonis method is
comparable to critics of global English who note that language is tied to culture and ways of
understanding the world, so that the use, adoption or imposition of a foreign language includes values
and beliefs as well as questions of inferiority and prestige of speakers identities. Kachru (2004) extends
this to argue that English is an Asian language and becomes fully capable of expressing various different
Asian values and identities because it is altered. So he is not arguing that because language is a neutral
vehicle for communication, as an empty conduit, it can be filled with any set of values and identities.
Gramsci then gives us more insight into what seems like a common sense proposition, that the
spread of global English facilitates global communication. On one level, of course this is true. On another
level, we have to ask two questions. Who specifically is engaging in this communication that stretches
more frequently across wider portions of the globe? And what are the other larger contexts of this is
communication? (Van Parijs 2011).
If we want all sorts of workers, womens, young peoples, old peoples, poor peoples
associations to organize on the every higher scale required for effective action, we must equip
them with the means of talking to one another without the need for interpreting boxes and the
highly skilled and paid professionals who go in them. One way of putting this is by saying that
we need to meet the linguistic preconditions for turning Europe, and ultimately the world, into
one demos, without this needing to mean that Europe, or the world, is thereby turned into a
single ethnos: a forum can be shared thanks to a common language ... (Van Parijs 2004: 118).
In conclusion, as globalization proceeds and English becomes a tool of international
communication for more and more people throughout the world, we can expect to see an accompanying
interest in localized varieties of English, as well as a concern for local indigenous and immigrant
languages. In a glocalized society, is it possible, we may ask, to maintain a reasonable variety between
local varieties of English, languages of lesser power, and English for global communication? How can
education best be used to implement this goal? The case studies above provide a few hints: relevant use of
media to supplement traditional education, expansion of the language into new domains, as well as with
the world of employment outside of the immediate community. Linguists and educators can assist in this

endeavor, but in the end it is the members of the communities themselves who will make the decisions as
to whether and how to empower their native languages. (Fred, 2010)
It is essential to consider our role as teachers of English and reflect that the classroom, the school
is the environment in which students live and learn can play an important role in promoting critical
thinking. In an ideal situation students have a useful realistic context to develop the competences they
need to have as critical citizens by participating in a culture in which these competences are necessary.
(Brown, 1997)
Finally, I see as one of the challenges for world Englishes professionals in the twenty-first
century the need to consider the relationship between English and small, less powerful languages, in order
to ensure that the spread of English does not conflict with the rights of people to maintain their native
languages and cultures. Furthermore, we need to preserve the linguistic diversity because language is the
pinnacle of the culture of every nation, and if assimilation annihilates identity, then the people too will be
annihilated. (Bari,1996:67).

References
Anderson, F. (2010). Developing basic research skills and awareness of English variation: The
Harry Potter project. Paper presented at the 16th Conference of the International Association for World
Englishes, Vancouver, Canada.
Bishop, R. & J. Phillips (2006) Language Theory, Culture & Society 23, 2-3, pp.51-69.
Brown, A. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious
matters. American Psychologist, 52, 399413.
Boran, I. (2003) Global Linguistic Diversity, Public Goods, and the Principle of Fairness, in
W. Kymlicka & A. Patten, eds., Language Rights and Political Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press),
pp.189-209.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1998b) The Myth of Globalization and the European Welfare State, in
Pierre Bourdieu Acts of Resistance, pp. 2944. New York: New Press.
Cala, G. (2010) Indigenous Childrens Education as Linguistic Genocide and a Crime against
Humanity?, pp-48
Canagarajah, S. A. (1999). Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Language Teaching.
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Crowley, T. (1996) Language in History: Theories and Texts (London: Routledge).
Crystal, D. (1997) English as a Global Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Crystal, D. (2000). Language Death. NY: Cambridge University Press. 1-20.
Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language, second edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
De Swaan, A. (2001) Words of the World. (Cambridge: Polity).
Graddol, D. (2006) English Next (London: British Council).
Gramsci, A. (1994b) Letters from Prison, Volume 2, F. Rosengarten, ed. and R. Rosenthal, trans.
(New York: Columbia University Press).
Grin, F. (2001) English as Economic Value: Facts and Fallacies World Englishes 20, 1, pp. 65-78.
Holborow, M. (1999) The Politics of English (London: Sage).

Ives, P. (2004b) Language and Hegemony in Gramsci (London/Halifax, Pluto/ Fernwood).

Kymlicka, W. & A. Patten (2003) Language Rights and Political Theory (Oxford: Oxford
University Press).
Losonsky, M. (2006) Linguistic Turns in Modern Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Pennycook, A. (1994) The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language (London: Longman).
Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, R. (1997). Realities and Myths of Linguistic Imperialism. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development. 18:3, 228-236.
Phillipson, R. (2004) English in Globalization: Three Approaches. Journal of Language, Identity
and Education 3 (1) January.
Romaine, S. (1997) World Englishes: Standards and the New World Order, in L.E. Smith and
M.L. Forman (eds.) World Englishes 2000 (College of Languages, Linguistics and Literature, University
of Hawaii, Honolulu).
Skutnabb-Kangas T., 2000, Linguistic genocide in education or worldwide diversity and
human rights? Mahwah, New Jersey & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shannon, S.M. (1995) The Hegemony of English: A Case Study of One Bilingual Classroom As
A Site of Resistance, Linguistics and Education 7 (3).
Sonntag, S. (2003) The Local Politics of Global English (Lanham: Lexington Books).
Zwisler J. (2015) Linguicide and Identity: A Multi-generational Study in Indigenous Identity. pp. 43
United Nations, (2007). United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. NY: UN.