Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL

1. Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL
Marko Modiano
Those who view the spread of English as linguistic imperialism question the English
language teaching and learning enterprise because, from their point of view, it
compromises the cultural integrity of the non-native speaker. As an English teacher
use the term EIL(English as international language ) to reconcile with the problems
associated with Linguistic imperialism . In Modiano’s view, the alternative, promoting
so-called ‘prestige’ varieties, positions the practitioner as a purveyor of Anglo-
American hegemony, and perpetuates the negative impact which foreign language
learning can have on the cultural integrity of the learner.
ELT practices and the danger of Anglo-American hegemony
Rajagopalan and Canagarajah say English language teaching is a function of linguistic
neo-colonialism . Canagarajah voices concern over how Phillipson’s theory of linguistic
imperialism impacts negatively on the classroom teacher. Aspects of the ELT
practitioner’s behavior which can be perceived as furthering the forces of linguistic
imperialism.
Imperialism in practice Exclusion
When a practitioner valuesone accent more than another one, they coerce studentsinto believingin
a nation-state centeredview, as opposed to an international frame of reference.
Near-native proficiency
For the students forcedto use a native like language, the language is not presentedas a lingua franca
primarily designed to provide them with accessto the global village, but is instead an avenue into
culturalindoctrination. Instead of insisting on a native like proficiency amacro approachto English
is required. That is a viewof the language as belonging to a broad range of peoples and cultures,
which is the best that language instructorscan do, in institutionalized teaching and learning settings,
to promote cultural equality.
Undermining cultural diversity
Institutionalized English language learning based on culture-specific prescriptive
norms, and supported by exposure to the language in a wide spectrum of activities,
comprises a programme which can be perceived as being what Phillipson calls ‘an
imperialist structure of exploitation of one society or collectivity by another’. This says
the promotion of the English language undermines cultural diversity .Some say export
educational materials and operate language schools as a way to extend their ‘sphere of
influence’ of linguistic imperialism. Braj Kachru proposes that one way tosafeguard the
cultural integrity of the nonnative speaker is to promote those indigenized varieties of
English which are established forms of intranational communication . Nevertheless,
European integration, and the use of English as the unofficial language for European
affairs, is forcing EU citizens to come to terms with Anglo-American ‘linguistic
imperialism’.
The political dimension

2. ‘Imperialistic’ function of English language learning is rooted in specific political
orientations. Capitalist values flourish in those cultures which are defined as English
speaking. One remedy is the promotion of a multitude of international tongues
A futurology of English
David Graddol is doubtful not only of the ability of the tongue to continue to maintain
its position as the world’s lingua franca, but also of the native-speakers’ability to
maintain their position as ‘representatives of the tongue’. He contends that there is a
‘growing assertiveness’ among ‘countries adopting English as a second language that
English is now their language, through which they can express their own values and
identities, create their own intellectual property and export goods and services to other
countries’ . The same can be said of foreign language speakers. In a critique of Kachru’s
‘inner, outer, and expanding circles’ model, which Graddol believes ‘will not be the most
useful for describing English usage in the next century’ because ‘it locates the ‘native
speakers’ and native-speaking countries at the centre of the global use of English, and,
by implication, the sources of models of correctness’ , Graddol instead suggests that the
‘centre of gravity’ is shifting to the L2 speaker. In political terms, it is evident that
British Council ideologues are pursuing this liberal line because of the larger share of
market.
International communication
English is now a prerequisite for participation in a vast number of activities such as
science, discussions, industry, and international movements.
Who experiences globalization?
It is this property of English, the necessity of learning the language, which so
profoundly challenges those opposed to the spread of the tongue. Pennycook questions
the very foundation of ‘English as an International Language’ ideologies, in asking
whether the assumption that ‘the world’, ‘global’, or ‘international’ are unproblematic
constructs’ (1994: 38). His answer is that they are not positivistic for a large number of
people. Pennycook suggests that while a privileged few enjoy the benefits of
globalization, many more suffer as a consequence. It is clear here that Pennycook, like
Phillipson, wants to superimpose the Marxist maxim of ‘exploiter’ and ‘exploited’ onto
linguistic scenarios in which both ‘advantaged’ and ‘disadvantaged’ players participate.
Conversely, John Honey, the radical defender of ‘standard English’, in calling for the
promotion of a prescriptive educational standard, insists that it is through a mastery of
standard English that the ‘disenfranchized’ are given an opportunity to partake in the
discourses which will lead them ‘forward’ (Honey 1997). For Honey, to be without a
command of an educated form of English is to be denied the tools which are required to

3. lift oneself up, so to speak, and get on in the world. Thus, to those on the left English is
exploitative, while those in the conservative camp insist that the ‘disenfranchized’ must
conform to specified ‘standards’ in order to acquire ‘wealth’. Regardless of what position
ELT practitioners take in this debate, the necessity of learning English will continue to
be a concern for an increasing number of people.
English has a mind of its own
The spread of English is no longer solely in the hands of the educators or ideologues
who perceive themselves as the engineers of language learning. Information technology
is introducing new avenues for the English language to take as it continues to colonize
the hearts and minds of millions of non-native speakers. And the call for the promotion of a
culture specific ‘Standard English’ is equally doomed to fail.
New properties of the lingua franca and global culture
The increasing use of English among non-native speakers has radically changed its
function and has taken on new characteristics. A global culture is emerging due to the
non-native speakers. There is an increasing number of cultural artefacts which are not
produced in the native tongue of the artists responsible for the expression.
Global culture in English
The USA and the UK do not hold monopolies on what are perceived to be international’
cultural phenomena marketed in English.
The spirit of internationalism
While globalization can be perceived as an active agent in the processes which
contribute to a diminishing of cultural diversity, it can conversely be celebrated as
emblematic of a new spirit of unity between diverse peoples and nations. Those who
discredit the spread of English are nevertheless forced to accept the fact that the
international movement requires a language of wider communication. It is also the case
that there is a need to support minority languages and cultures. Like all ‘cultural
artefacts’, languages give testimony to the unique heritage of humankind. Thus, one can
say that the globalization movement is attempting a perilous balancing act. While on the
one hand there is a call for a language of wider communication, for a common space, we
have on the other hand a sincere desire to preserve cultural diversity. These two
movements, which are contradictory, are bound to result in conflict and irresolution.
The downside of the spread of English
A number of cultures have lost a distinct identity originating from an ancestral language
as a result of linguistic imperialism. Nevertheless, the similarity in values, social
organization, religious orientation, etc., has made the spread of English less problematic

4. for Europe. In the non-Western world, however, Western languages and modes of
thinking are a greater imposition. Exploitation is far more relevant there. At the same
time, access to the information highways and to the economic developments made
possible through co-operation with the West can have a beneficial impact on these
cultures.
Cultural integration vs. linguistic diversity?
English is now moving toward the second stage of development. That is to say, while the
lingua franca was initially intended to bring people together, it is now being deployed in
the creation of cultural artefacts which are representative of global culture. English
language is the platform upon which globalization will come into being.
Graddol has made it clear that there is a possibility of English sharing global linguistic
hegemony with Spanish and Chinese .However, while they may appear logical, such
scenarios are essentially irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The momentum which
English has amassed at this point in history is so great that there is every reason to
assume that as a lingua franca English will continue to dictate protocol throughout the
better part of this century.
Nevertheless, because of the need to conserve linguistic diversity, it is reasonable that
language planners should work toward demoting English and promoting the learning of
other languages. Such a programme is currently being carried out in the EU. At the
same time, however, improved English proficiency among the citizens of the EU can be
observed. Programmes aimed at altering the movement toward increasing knowledge of
English are up against a formidable force, and it is inconceivable that enough
educational planning could be carried out to curtail the impact of the spread of English
on the unique identity of a multitude of European cultures.
What role will a global educational standard play?
It is impossible to learn a foreign language without being influenced ideologically,
politically, culturally, etc. The teaching and learning of a geographically, politically, and
culturally ‘neutral’ form of English, which is perceived as a language of wider
communication and not as the possession of native speakers, is one of the few options
we have at hand if we want to continue to promote English language learning while at
the same time attempting to somehow ‘neutralize’ the impact which the spread of
English has on the cultural integrity of the learner . This is because the use of a ‘core-
based English’, as opposed to a variety based on the nation state, impacts less negatively
on the culture and language(s) of the non-native speaker . Instead, English, as an
international language, is simply a utilitarian communicative tool, one which allows the
non-native user to retain, to the greatest degree possible, their distinctive cultural
characteristics.

5. A phonology for EIL
In an effort to construct a taxonomy for EIL, Jennifer
Jenkins (2000) attempts to reconsider ‘the problems of mutual phonological
intelligibility . . . with the aim of facilitating the use of EIL Jenkins’ perceptions of her
findings, situated in a belief that the cultural orientation of English, for the L2 speaker,
must by definition be lingua franca-orientated, as opposed to being based on a
‘prestigious’ L1 variety, leads her to contend that a core EIL phonology is more ‘cross-
culturally democratic’ . Here we see how an EIL perspective not only challenges
traditional notions of educational standards, and teaching and learning practices, but
more importantly positions ELT as an enterprise primarily dedicated to the acquisition
of inter-cultural communicative skills.
An Ecology of language
Supporting the cultural integrity of those who are threatened by the spread of English. It
is also important to establish an international standard for English teaching and
learning. An ecology of language and culture will emerge . Here, linguistic ecology does
not necessarily mean protecting languages from ‘impurities’, or influence from other
languages, but is indicative of a desire to safeguard languages from becoming extinct.
We have been witnessing the expansion of this language for centuries, and many of us
have dedicated our professional lives to its promotion. Our responsibility now must be
to both embrace the beast and at the same time to tame it, to allow the language to act
as the interface for the global network, while at the same time taking action to protect
minority tongues and cultures from extinction. The ELT practitioner can be actively
involved in this ‘ecology of language’ mindset, and attempt toimplement language
teaching and learning practices which support the cultural and linguistic integrity of the
nonnative speaker, or, alternatively, the practitioner can promote a nationstate based
prescriptive norm, and in the process actively work towards a diminishing of cultural
diversity. Hopefully, people responsible for language planning will take a hard look at
some of the traditional practices which position the educational standard for English as
being based on an American or British variety (or some other proposed ‘prestige’
nation-state, culture-specific variety), and instead come to an understanding that as a
lingua franca, an international view of the language is more conducive to the
conservation of cultural pluralism.
Enjoy,
Magic 7