33
Global and worldly Englishes: Discommunities and subcultural empires
(essay)
English, community, discommunication
Under the headline “Doctor couldn’t spell ‘acute’” an article in the
Barrier Daily Truth (5/01/01; originally published in the South China
Morning Post) reports that “A Hong Kong doctor left the word ‘acute’ out
of a dying heart patient’s diagnosis because he didn’t know how to spell
it…” The story goes on: “The patient was treated for a less-serious
condition as a result and died in hospital hours after going to Dr Chau
Chak-lam with chest pains…” The patient, Chiu Yiu-wah, was admitted only
as an “urgent” case, two steps down from the “critical” case, as a
result of the referral letter. At the inquest, the doctor admitted that
he “should have put the word ‘acute’” on the instructions to the
hospital. He “had acute angina pectoris in mind” but had omitted the
word ‘acute’. The crux of this sad story is in the doctor’s explanation:
“I was not sure about the translation” and “I did not know the English
spelling…Asked by the coroner why he did not use Chinese, Chau said he
was following the common practice in Hong Kong of using English in
referral letters”. Unfortunately, the brief story stops there without
further details about the use of English in Hong Kong medical contexts.
All we have is a Hong Kong Chinese doctor and patient, a problem with
English, and an avoidable death. It looks as if highlighting the issue
of the doctor not being able to spell ‘acute’ misses the point: It was
more that he couldn’t think of the English translation. And why indeed
should he, as a Cantonese doctor with a Cantonese patient in a Cantonese
city?
Let me jump to South Africa. Crawford’s (1999) study of communication
between patients, nurses and doctors in Cape Town (RSA) health services
highlights “the problem posed by doctors being linguistically unequipped
to care for Xhosa-speaking patients, whose numbers continue to grow
rapidly as people move to town from the rural areas” (p.27). Here we see
the complexities of relations lying behind a ‘language barrier’; at
issue here are questions of language and power within medical contexts
as well as within the whole broader context of South African society.
“It is not possible,” suggests Crawford, “to isolate the patient
disempowered in terms of the language barrier from the whole biomedical
discourse in which patients occupy a disempowered position” (p.29).
Neither is it possible to see issues of language, interpretation and
medical discourse as separate from the class, gendered and racial
relations of South Africa: “The patients are positioned at the bottom,
largely passive bodies whose own version or narrative of their illness
is not considered central to the processes of diagnosis and formulation
of a realistic treatment strategy. The nurses, often also used as
(unpaid) interpreters in South Africa where a wide gulf of social class,
race, language, and gender frequently separates doctor from patient,
occupy a conflicted and ambivalent position intersecting the space
between them” (p.29).
This gives us, then, a more complex picture than the newspaper sketch of
a patient dying because his doctor couldn’t spell ‘acute’. Here we see a
fuller picture of how language is embedded in social relations and
indeed is part of the system that perpetuates inequality. And, as
Crawford argues, change can only be brought about by addressing
questions of language as well as other social, economic and political
concerns: “To fashion a new integrated social order out of a severely
traumatized past, to accept and work with the reality of black
suppression and rage at white domination, requires, among other things,
a sophisticated grasp of the social meaning of the use of a particular
language, and a commitment to overcome the discrimination against and
exclusion from power of those who speak languages other than English”
(p.32). While on the one hand, then, we may want to acknowledge the
usefulness of English as a language of global communication, we clearly
also need to acknowledge it as the language of global miscommunication,
or perhaps discommunication. And I do not mean this in any trivial
fashion – I am not merely talking here of misunderstanding, but rather
of the role of English as a language that is linked to inequality,
injustice, and the prevention of communication. Thus, when we talk of
language communities and the possible benefits of communication they may
bring, we must also consider who is simultaneously left out of such
cultural empires and what the onsequences may be.
For my final example of English and medical discommunication, I would
like to turn to a passage from Han Suyin’s (1956) novel… And the Rain
my Drink, which draws on her own experiences as a doctor in
pre-independence Malaya:
Among the doctors few can speak to all the patients, for in Malaya a
university education, by its very insistence upon excellence in English,
hampers a doctor from acquiring the vernacular languages of this
country.
And thus at night, when the patients confide in the darkness and in
their own tongue what they have withheld from physician and nurse, I
begin to understand the terror, the confusion, the essential need to
prevaricate of those who are always at someone else’s mercy, because
they cannot communicate with those who decide their fate, except through
an interpreter.
In the process, how many deviations, changes, siftings, warpings, and
twistings; how many opportunities for blackmail and corruption, before,
transformed, sometimes unrecognizable, the stories of the poor who do
not speak English reach their rulers, who are handpicked, among their
own peoples, on the basis of their knowledge of English. (p.31)
These brief stories – a newspaper story about a death in Hong Kong, a
study of communication in Cape Town hospitals, a novel set in
pre-independence Malaya – are inter-connected in a number of ways: All
speak to the range of contexts into which English has penetrated; all
speak to the ways in which English becomes linked to forms of
institutionalized power; all speak to the ways in which English
functions as a class-based language; all speak to the tension between
local, multiple vernacular languages and the monolingualism of the
language of power; all speak to the ways in which English is as much a
language of global discommunication as it is a language of global
communication. These examples, drawn from one interconnected domain –
language use in medical contexts – but from diverse contexts, point to
the many ways in which English has become a language (though not the
only language) of global disparity and discommunication. Such a role, of
course, needs to be seen in terms of the complex interplay between the
local and the global. It does matter that the language in the examples
is English, as one of the major players in global relations. It also
matters that these contexts are in Hong Kong, South Africa and Malaya,
all places that have felt the insidious effects of British colonialism
and its socially and ethnically divisive policies. It matters too that
the domain is medicine, as one that has become based on very particular
formations of knowledge and practice, so that its practitioners work
with forms of supposedly universal or global, rather then locally
derived, knowledge.
There are many domains in which English plays similar roles, business
and the economy being one of the most salient. In the Philippines, for
example, “English continues to occupy the place of privilege – it being
the language of the ruling system, government, education, business and
trade, and diplomacy…The role of Philippine education… seems to be
that of supplying the world market economy with a docile and cheap labor
force who are trained in English and the vocational and technical skills
required by that economy. As it is we do have a decided advantage in the
export market of domestic helpers and laborers. Cite their knowledge of
English as that advantage” (Ordoсez, 1999 pp19-20). Again we can see
here the continued effects of colonialism (the particular effects of the
US after the Spanish), the ways in which English is embedded in local
institutional contexts (an education system that continues to favour
English), and how these local contexts interrelate with broader global
concerns such as IMF/World Bank pressures to develop particular types of
economy, and the fact that the continuing poverty of the Philippines
means that it exports its own people as cheap labour with a knowledge of
English. Domestic helpers from the Philippines are popular in Hong Kong
and Singapore in part because they can interact with children in
English, something which is seen as a particular advantage in these two
former colonies with their English-dominant language policies and
dependence on global trade.
To start to understand the complex global role of English, we need to
think outside questions of language communities and cultural empires.
The notion of language community posits a problematic commonality both
in terms of the common premises behind the term language and the usual
assumptions of the term community. The notion of cultural empires is
equally problematic, however, suggesting also a form of commonality,
albeit an imposed one, and implying therefore that English reresents a
similiarity of culture and thought. Both notions suggest a level of
homogeneity as a result of a supposedly shared language. Alternative
versions of the global spread of English propose a more heterogeneous
version, whereby we have many Englishes and many worlds. And yet, as I
shall argue here this version too has its flaws, based as it is on a
supposed pluralization of Englishes based around newly emergent national
linguistic identities.
In the rest of this paper, I shall take up these issues from various
perspectives in order to open up an understanding of current scholarship
on the community of English speakers. I shall argue that we cannot come
to an understanding of English without a complex appreciation of
globalization as both a global and local process, as both an
impositional and an oppositional set of relations that produces
something new (neither the same nor merely pluralized) in the doing.
First, I shall look at current debates over the global spread of
English, looking particularly at the arguments over homogeny and
heterogeny in the world. One of the central arguments here will be that
one’s understanding of English as part of a cultural empire or a
language community depend very much on the model of globalization that
one employs. Second, I shall look briefly at colonial language policy in
order to make several points: colonialism created more complex empires
than simple language communities. By this I mean that spreading the
colonial language was only one tool and goal of colonialism. The use of
vernacular languages as both a policy of pragmatic vernacularism and
part of an orientalist preservationism was at least as significant as
the use of English. The spread of English has been driven by postwar
changes, the rise of the US, changing economic and political conditions
and so forth. One of the other effects of continuing colonial relations
is the construction and maintenance of languages, what Makoni and I
(Makoni and Pennycook, in press), following Foucault, have called the
‘language effects’ of missionary and colonial activity. Finally I will
consider various new directions for thinking about language in the
world.
Beyond homogeny and heterogeny
So how do we start to make sense of these interrelationships between
English and the local and global? Writers from different ends of the
political spectrum are often united in their agreement that English and
globalisation go hand in hand. Where they differ is in terms of the
effects of such globalisation. Thus, reviewing David Crystal’s (1997)
book on the global spread of English, Sir John Hanson, the former
Director-General of the British Council is able to proclaim: “On it
still strides: we can argue about what globalisation is till the cows
come – but that globalisation exists is beyond question, with English
its accompanist. The accompanist is indispensable to the performance”
(Hanson, 1997, p.22). Phillipson (1999), by contrast, in his review of
the same book, opts for a critical rather than a triumphalist
evaluation: “Crystal’s celebration of the growth of English fits
squarely into what the Japanese scholar, Yukio Tsuda, terms the
Diffusion of English Paradigm, an uncritical endorsement of capitalism,
its science and technology, a modernisation ideology, monolingualism as
a norm, ideological globalisation and internationalization,
transnationalization, the Americanization and homogenisation of world
culture, linguistic, culture and media imperialism (Tsuda, 1994) ”
(p.274).
One view of English and globalization, then, views English as part of a
process of global homogenization. Whether or not we wish to adhere to
this particular version of imperialism, there are important concerns
here about the relations between English and other cultural, political
and economic relations. As Tollefson (2000) explains, “at a time when
English is widely seen as a key to the economic success of nations and
the economic well-being of individuals, the spread of English also
contributes to significant social, political, and economic inequalities.
” (p.8). On the one hand, then, some see English as fulfilling “the
perceived need for one language of international communication. Through
English, people worldwide gain access to science, technology, education,
employment, and mass culture, while the chance of political conflict is
also reduced. ” Yet on the other hand, amongst other things, “the spread
of English presents a formidable obstacle to education, employment, and
other activities requiring English proficiency” (p.9). Phillipson’s
(1992) book, Linguistic Imperialism, remains the clearest articulation
of this position. As Tollefson (2000, p.13) explains “Phillipson’s
analysis places English squarely in the center of the fundamental
sociopolitical processes of imperialism, neo-colonialism, and global
economic restructuring. In this view, the spread of English can never be
neutral but is always implicated in global inequality. Thus Phillipson,
in contrast to Kachru, argues that the spread of English is a positive
development for some people (primarily in core countries) and harmful to
others (primarily in the periphery). The spread of English, in this
view, is a result of policies adopted by core countries to bring about
the worldwide hegemony of English, for the benefit of core country
institutions and individuals”.
What Phillipson (1992) is arguing, then, is that English is interlinked
with the continuing neocolonial patterns of global inequality. He
explains:
We live in a world characterised by inequality – of gender, nationality,
race, class, income, and language. To trace and understand the linkages
between English linguistic imperialism and inequality in the political
and economic spheres will require us to look at the rhetoric and
legitimation of ELT (for instance, at protestations that it is a
‘neutral’, ‘non-political’ activity) and relate what ELT claims to be
doing to its structural functions. (1992, pp46-7)
According to Phillipson, therefore, English plays an important role in
the structure of global inequality. The notion of imperialism in
‘linguistic imperialism’ thus refers not only to the imperialism of
English (the ways in which English has spread around the world) but also
to imperialism more generally (the ways in which some parts of the world
are dominated politically, economically, and culturally, by other parts
of the world). It is not a coincidence, therefore, that English is the
language of the great imperial power of the 19th century (Great Britain)
and also of the great imperial (or neocolonial) power of the 20th
century (and probably the 21st) (USA).
Phillipson convincingly shows how, for example, “A vast amount of the
aid effort has…gone into teacher education and curriculum development in
and through English, and other languages have been neglected. A
Western-inspired monolingual approach was adopted that ognored the
multilingual reality and cultural specificity of learners in diverse
‘Third World’ contexts” (1994, p. 19). As he goes on to argue, “In the
current global economy, English is dominant in many domains, which
creates a huge instrumental demand for English. There has therefore
already been a penetration of the language into most cultures and
education systems” (1994, pp. 20-21). But the challenge here is to show
not only that the global spread of English can be seen as a form of
imperialism which is particularly threatening to other languages and
cultures, nor only that this spread of English correlates with other
forms of political and economic domination and thus reflects global
inequality, but rather that there is also a causative relationship
between the promotion of English and forms of global inequality, that
English helps produce and maintain inequitable global power
relationships. While it is indeed crucial to understand the political
context of the spread of English, we need to be cautious of assuming
that the effects of the spread of English are easily understood, that
language is simply spread rather than learned, adopted, adapted and
appropriated.
While this homogeny position views English as a reflex of global
capitalism and commercialization, the alternative heterogeny position,
as epitomised by the notion of world Englishes, views the global spread
of English in terms of increasing differentiation. The interest from
this perspective is on the ‘implications of pluricentricity…, the new
and emerging norms of performance, and the bilingual’s creativity as a
manifestation of the contextual and formal hybridity of Englishes’
(Kachru, 1997: 66). And yet, while Kachru’s world Englishes framework
opens up questions of hybridity and appropriation, at the same time it
all too often loses sight of the broader political context. As
Canagarajah (1999a, p180) points out, Kachru “does not go far enough,
since he is not fully alert to the ideological implications of periphery
Englishes. In his attempt to systematize the periphery variants, he has
to standardize the language himself, leaving out many eccentric, hybrid
forms of local Englishes as too unsystematic. In this, the Kachruvian
paradigm follows the logic of the prescriptive and elitist tendencies of
the center linguists.”
Amongst a number of problems here (Pennycook 2002) are the political
naivety, descriptive (in) adequacy of the three circles, the focus on
varieties of English along national lines, and the exclusionary
divisions that discount ‘other Englishes’. Of immediate concern, then,
is the rather strange insistence within this paradigm on the social,
cultural, and political neutralty of English (see for example, Kachru
1985, 1986). As Parakrama (1995, p.22) points out, these repeated
claims, are strangely repetitive, bizarre and inaccurate, hiding as they
do a range of social and political relations: “These pleas for the
neutrality of English in the post-colonial contexts are as ubiquitous
and as insistent as they are unsubstantiated and unexplained. ” Dua
(1994, p 7) also takes exception to these claims, arguing that the
notion of ‘neutrality’ ‘can be questioned on both theoretical as well as
empirical grounds,’ English being both ‘ideologically encumbered’ and
‘promoted to strengthen its hegemonic control over the indigenous
varieties. ’ In his debate with Rajagopalan (1999) over the merits of
linguistic imperialism and linguistic hybridity arguments, Canagarajah
(1999b: p 210) argues that while linguistic imperialism may be
problematic, a World Englishes perspective that promotes the neutrality
of English leads to an unhelpful ‘business as usual’ line: “We are urged
to bury our eyes ostrich-like to the political evils and ideological
temptations outside.”
Probably the best known and most often cited dimension of the WE
paradigm is the model of concentric circles: the ‘norm-providing’ inner
circle, where English is spoken as a native language (ENL), the
‘norm-developing’ outer circle, where it is a second language (ESL), and
the ‘norm-dependent’ expanding circle, where it is a foreign language
(EFL). Although only “tentatively labelled” (Kachru 1985: 12) in earlier
versions, it has been claimed more recently that “the circles model is
valid in the senses of earlier historical and political contexts, the
dynamic diachronic advance of English around the world, and the
functions and standards to which its users relate English in its many
current global incarnations” (Kachru and Nelson 1996, p 78). Yano (2001,
p 121) refers to this model as the “standard framework of world
Englishes studies. ” Yet this model suffers from several flaws: the
location of nationally defined identities within the circles, the
inability to deal with numerous contexts, and the privileging of ENL
over ESL over EFL.
First, and most disconcertingly, it constructs speaker identity along
national lines within these circles. As Krishnaswamy and Burde (1998,
p.30) argue, if Randolph Quirk represented “the imperialistic attitude”
to English, the WE paradigm represents “a nationalistic point of view,”
whereby nations and their varieties of English are conjured into
existence: “Like Indian nationalism, ‘Indian English’ is ‘fundamentally
insecure’ since the notion ‘nation-India’ is insecure” (p.63). If on the
one hand this suggests that speakers within a country belong in a
particular circle and speak a particular national variety (or don’t, if
their country happens to be in the rather large expanding circle), it
also, as Holborow (1999, pp 59-60) points out, “fails to take adequate
account of social factors and social differences within the circles. ”
Thus language users are assigned to a particular variety of English
according on the one hand to their nationality and on the other the
location of that nation within a particular circle. Australians speak
English as a native language, Malaysians speak it as a second language,
and Japanese use it as a foreign language. The problem is that it
depends very much who you are: A well-educated Chinese Malaysian in KL
may speak English as a ‘second’ or ‘first’ language, while a rural Malay
may know English only as a distant foreign language. Parallel relations
can be found in Australia and Japan, and indeed wherever we care to look
around the world.
Second, despite claims to the contrary, it continues to privilege native
speakers over nonnative speakers, and then ESL speakers (nationally
defined) over EFL speakers (nationally defined) (see Graddol 1997).
Although the WE paradigm has significantly questioned the status of
native speakers in deciding what counts as English and what does not, it
has not gone far enough in questioning the divide itself. It continues
to maintain that the core Englishes are spoken by native speakers while
the peripheral Englishes are spoken by nonnative speakers. This, as U.
N. Singh (1998, p 16) points out, is one of the more “fantastic claims’’
of this line of thinking. More recently, there has been a softening on
this position, so that it is now conceded that we may talk of “genetic
nativeness” in the inner circle and “functional nativeness” in the outer
circle (see Yano 2001). But none of this calls into question either the
circular argument that locates ‘nativeness’ according to these circles,
or the very divide itself. And a division between genetic and functional
nativeness is surely based on an insidious division, a point that
Salikoko Mufwene takes up in his discussion of the distinction between
‘native’ and ‘indigenized’ varieties.
Mufwene, (1994, 1998) laments that this distinction discounts pidgins
and creoles: “I still find the opposition ‘native’ vs ‘indigenized
English’ objectionable for several reasons,” particularly because “the
distinction excludes English creoles, most of which are spoken as native
languages and vernaculars” (1994: 24). Furthermore, “the label
‘non-native’ seems inadequate and in fact reflects some social biases,
especially when it turns out that there are some ethical/racial
correlates to the distinction ‘native’ versus ‘non-native English’ as
applied in the literature on indegenized Englishes” (1998: 119). Thus,
while usefully challenging the central privilege of the NS to define the
norms and standards of English, it has generally failed to question the
NS/NNS dichotomy in any profound fashion, and indeed has supported an
insidious divide between native and indigenized English. The WE paradigm
also excludes numerous contexts where language use is seen as too
complex (Jamaica and South Africa are two examples given from the
outset; many others are similarly excluded). The crucial point here,
then, is that inspite of talk of clines and varieties, the indigenized
new Englishes remain the codified class dialects of a small elite, while
a vast range of other Englishes spoken across much broader sections of
the population, including creoles and many other forms of language use,
are excluded. But to include such varieties of English would start to
destabilize the central myth that there is an overarching thing called
English.
While this position within the WE paradigm means on the one hand that
the global spread of English is taken more or less as a given – an
historical effect of colonialism – it also means, on the other, that
struggles around what counts as a variety of English are overlooked. As
Parakrama (1995, pp 25-6) argues, ‘The smoothing out of struggle within
and without language is replicated in the homogenizing of the varieties
of English on the basis of ‘upper-class’ forms. Kachru is thus able to
theorize on the nature of a monolithic Indian English…’ According to
Parakrama (1995) and Canagarajah (1999a), this focus in World Englishes
on codified varieties – so-called Indian English, Singaporean English,
and so on – spoken by a small elite pushes aside questions of class,
gender, ethnicity and popular culture. While claiming ground as an
inclusionary paradigm, it remains insistently exclusionary, discounting
creoles, so-called basilectal uses of languages, and, to a large extent,
all those language forms used in the ‘expanding circle’, since as
uncodified varieties, non-standard forms still hold the status of
errors.
Crucially, then, for the argument I wish to make here, as a
sociolinguistic theory the WE paradigm is far too exclusionary to be
able to account for many uses of English around the world. Its central
“methodological strategy” of comparing local forms with “metropolitan
English,” and thus always making peripheral difference dependent on
variation from the Englishes of the centre circle (Dasgupta, 1993, p
135), makes it blind to other possibilities. It “cannot do justice to
those Other Englishes as long as they remain within the over-arching
structures that these Englishes bring to crisis. To take these new/other
Englishes seriously would require a fundamental revaluation of
linguistic paradigms, and not merely a slight accommodation or
adjustment” (Parakrama 1995, p 17). If Dasgupta’s (1993, p 137) lament
that “…seldom have so many talented men and women worked so long and so
hard and achieved so little” is perhaps rather overstated, Krishnaswamy
and Burde’s (1998, p 64) call for “a reinvestigation of several concepts
currently used by scholars” needs serious consideration. At the very
least, we need to break away from the constrictive circles with their
many exclusions and to start to think more seriously about
globalization, popular culture and other Englishes.
Rather than the model of language implied by a simple globalization
thesis – the homogeny or cultural empire position – or the view of
language suggested by a world englishes framework – the heterogeny or
hybridity position – my argument is that we need an understanding of
English that allows for a critical appraisal of both the globalizing and
worldly forces around the language. I am particularly interested here in
looking at the complex interactions between global and local forces,
English and popular culture. Debates around the global spread of English
are still all too often caught between arguments about homogeneity or
heterogeneity, linguistic imperialism or linguistic hybridity, that do
not allow for sufficiently complex understandings of what is currently
happening with global Englishes. Both frameworks, furthermore, maintain
a belief in the ontology of English, that all this discussion of English
concerns a real entity, a belief that has started to be quistioned in
certain domains: “there is, or at least there may well be, no such thing
as English” (Reagan, 2004, p42). First, however, I want to explore
globalization and colonialism in greater depth.
Globalization and colonialism
In order to take these arguments further, we need to take a step back
and reconsider questions of globalization. There is no space here to
explore these in depth, so I shall take up one particular set of
concerns – hostorical continuity and disjuncture – in order to develop a
broader argument about how we may reconsider English in the current
world. An ongoing controversy in discussions of globalization concerns
whether we view it as just another phase of capitalist expansion or
whether it represents a fundamentally new moment in global relations. On
the one hand, there is the argument that capital has always been global
in its reach (even if the global wasn’t quite as global as it is now):
European imperialism sought to create global access to resources, global
distribution networks and global markets for its products. On the other
hand is the argument that current globalization is something
fundamentally new, involving new arrangements of states, new forms of
communication, new movements of people, and so forth. As Kramsch’s
(1999) puts it, “If there is one thing that globalization has brought
us, and that the teaching of English makes possible, it is travel,
migration, multiple allegiances, and a different relationship to time
and place” (p.138).
Hardt and Negri’s (2000) Empire is significant here since it argues
strongly for disjuncture, arguing that most analyses fail to account for
“the novelty of the structures and logics of power that order the
contemporary world. Empire is not a weak echo of modern imperialisms but
a fundamentally new form of rule” (p.146). Unlike the old imperialism
(s), which were centred around the economic and political structures and
exchanges of the nation state (indeed, the two were in many ways
mutually constitutive), and which may be best portrayed in terms of
world maps with different colours for different empires, the new Empire
is a system of national and supranational regulations that control and
produce new economies, cultures, politics and ways of living. The US, in
this view, while a major player in the new Empire, has not simply taken
over the imperial mantle from the European powers, since such a view
maintains a states-centric version of the world.
Such a position, however, runs the serious danger of distancing
ourselves too much from past forms of empire. Mignolo (2000) is useful
here, arguing that “The current process of globalization is not a new
phenomenon, although the way in which it is taking place is without
precedent. On a larger scale, globalization at the end of the twentieth
century (mainly occurring through transnational corporations, the media,
and technology) is the most recent configuration of a process that can
be traced back to the 1500s, with the beginning of transatlantic
exploration and the consolidation of Western hegemony” (p.236). Mignolo
traces three principal phases: The first as the Orbis Universalis
Christianus consolidated by the defeat of the Moors, the expulsion of
the Jews from the Iberian peninsula and the ‘discovery’ of America. The
second phase “replaced the hegemony of the Christian mission with the
civilizing mission” with a new basis of mercantile expansion and trading
based around Amsterdam, and the emergence of France and England as the
new imperial powers. The civilizing mission took over from the Christian
mission but also co-existed with it. This misison went through various
configurations in the twentieth century, particularly the development
and modernization paradigms after WWII. Finally, the third phase has
gradually taken precedent with the emphasis on efficiency and expanding
markets. But, as Mignolo emphasizes, we need to understand “the
coexistence of successive global designs that are part of the imaginary
of the modern/colonial world system” (p.280).
It is crucial, I want to argue, to see the global spread of English in a
complex relation to this imperial past. All too often, it is assumed
that the current role of English is either a continuation of the
colonial past, or a radically new effect of recent history. In fact, it
is a much more complex history. It is important, first of all, to
understand that British colonial language policy was not massively in
favour of spreading English. Colonial language policies can be seen as
constructed between four poles (for much greater detailed analysis, see
Pennycook, 1998; 2000): First, the position of colonies within a
capitalist empire and the need to produce docile and compliant workers
and consumers to fuel capitalist expansion; second, the discourses of
Anglicism and liberalism with their insistence on the European need to
bring civilization to the world through English; third, local
contingencies of class, ethnicity, race and economic conditions that
dictated the distinctive development of each colony; and fourth, the
discourses of Orientalism with its insistence on exotic histories,
traditions and nations in decline. By and large, these competing
discourses on the requirements for colonial education produced language
policies broadly favouring education in local languages: Vernacular
education was seen as the best means of educating a compliant workforce
and of inculcating moral and political values that would make the
colonial governance of large populations more possible. English was seen
as a dangerous weapon, an unsafe thing, too much of which would lead to
a discontented class of people who were not prepared to abide by the
colonial system.
There are, of course ample examples of imperial rhetoric extolling the
virtues of English, from Charles Grant’s argument in 1797 that “The
first communication, and the instrument of introducing the rest, must be
the English language; this is a key which will open to them a world of
new ideas, and policy alone might have impelled us, long since, to put
it into their hands” (Bureau of Education, 1920, p.83), through
Macaulay’s infamous Minute of 1835, to Frederick Lugard’s views on the
use of English at Hong Kong University in the early part of the 20th
century: “I would emphasize the value of English as the medium of
instruction. If we believe that British interests will be thus promoted,
we believe equally firmly that graduates, by the mastery of English,
will acquire the key to a great literature and the passport to a great
trade (1910, p.4). These arguments, however, had more to do with the
construction of English as a language with particular benefits, an issue
that will be discussed below, than with the expansion of English beyond
a narrow elite.
The weight of argument by colonial administrators was much more in
favour of education in local languages. In the 1884 report on education
(Straits Settlements), E. C. Hill, the Inspector of Schools for the
colony, explained his reasons against increasing the provision of
education in English: Apart from the costs and the difficulties in
finding qualified teachers to teach English, there was the further
problem that “as pupils who acquire a knowledge of English are
invariably unwilling to earn their livelihood by manual labour, the
immediate result of affording an English education to any large number
of Malays would be the creation of a discontented class who might become
a source of anxiety to the community” (p.171). This position was
extremely common and is echoed, for example, by Frank Swettenham’s
argument in the Perak Government Gazette (6 July, 1894): “I am not in
favour of extending the number of `English’ schools except where there
is some palpable desire that English should be taught. Whilst we teach
children to read and write and count in their own languages, or in
Malay… we are safe” (emphasis in original). Thus, as Loh Fook Seng
(1970) comments, “Modern English education for the Malay then is ruled
out right from the beginning as an unsafe thing” (p.114).
In an article on vernacular education in the State of Perak, the
Inspector of Schools, H. B. Collinge, explained the benefits of
education in Malay as taking “thousands of our boys… away from
idleness”, helping them at the same time to ”acquire habits of industry,
obedience, punctuality, order, neatness, cleanliness and general good
behaviour” Thus, after a boy had attended school for a year or so, he
was “found to be less lazy at home, less given to evil habits and
mischievous adventure, more respectful and dutiful, much more willing to
help his parents, and with sense enough not to entertain any ambition
beyond following the humble home occupations he has been taught to
respect”. And not only does the school inculcate such habits of dutiful
labour but it also helps colonial rule more generally since “if there is
any lingering feeling of dislike of the `white man’, the school tends
greatly to remove it, for the people see that the Government has really
their welfare at heart in providing them with this education, free,
without compulsion, and with the greatest consideration for their
mohammedan sympathies” (cited in Straits Settlements, 1894, p.177).
Similarly in Hong Kong, E. J. Eitel, the Inspector of Schools, argued
that by studying Chinese classics, students learn “a system of morality,
not merely a doctrine, but a living system of ethics.” Thus they learn
“filial piety, respect for the aged, respect for authority, respect for
the moral law”. In the Government schools, by contrast, where English
books are taught from which religious education is excluded, “no
morality is implanted in the boys” (Report, 1882, p.70). Thus, the
teaching of Chinese is “of higher advantage to the Government” and “boys
strongly imbued with European civilization whilst cut away from the
restraining influence of Confucian ethics lose the benefits of
education, and the practical experience of Hongkong is that those who
are thoroughly imbued with the foreign spirit, are bad in morals”
(p.70).
We need to understand, therefore, the language effects of colonialism
not only in terms of promotion of colonial languages but also in terms
of the construction and use of vernacular languages for colonial
purposes. Christian missionaries, for example, have played a crucial
role not only in assisting past and current forms of colonialism and
neocolonialism, not only in attacking and destroying other ways of
being, but also in terms of the language effects their projects have
engendered. The choices missionaries have made to use local or European
languages have been far more than a mere choice of medium. On the one
hand, missionary language projects continue to use and promote European
languages, and particularly English, for Christian purposes. The use of
English language teaching as a means to convert the unsuspecting English
language learner raise profound moral and political questions about what
is going on in English classrooms around the world. On the other hand,
missionary linguists have played a particular role in the construction
and invention of languages around the world. Of particular concern here
are the ways in which language use, and understandings of language use,
have been – and still are – profoundly affected by missionary projects.
Bilingualism between indigenous languages and a metropolitan language,
for example, was part of a conservative missionary agenda in which
converting to Christianity was the inevitable process of being
bilingual.
(see Pennycook and Coutand-Marin, 2003; Pennycook and Makoni, in press).
The implications of this understanding of colonial language policy are
several: First, education in vernacular languages was promoted both as a
means of colonial governance and as an Orientalist project for the
maintenance of cultural formations. While this has many implications for
an understanding of mother tongue education and modes of governance (see
Pennycook, 2002), it is also significant for the role of English both
before and after the formal ending of colonialism. The effects of
Anglicist rhetoric did not produce widespread teaching of English but
did produce widespread images of English as a superior language that
could bestow immense benefits on its users, a topic to which I shall
turn below. Meanhwile the language had been coveted and acquired by
social and economic elites with whom the British were now negotiating
independence. This was to have significant implications for the
neocolonial development of English in the latter half of the 20th
century.
One of the lasting effects of the spread of English under colonialism
was the production of images of English and of its learners. Simply put,
the point here is that English, like Britain, its empire and
institutions, was massively promoted as the finest and greatest medium
for arts, politics, trade and religion. At the same time, the learners
of English were subjected to the imaginings of Orientalism, with its
exoticised, static and derided Others. Thus, on the one hand, we have
the cultural constructs of Orientalism – the cultures and characters of
those who learn English – and on the other hand the cultural constructs
of Occidentalism – the benefits and glories of the English language. As
many writers on colonialism have argued (see for example, Singh, 1996,
Mignolo, 2000), such discourses have continued long beyond the formal
end of colonialism. Thus, not only can we see the current spread of
English in terms of economic and political neocolonial relations, but
also in terms of cultural neocolonial relations. As Bailey (1991)
comments, “the linguistic ideas that evolved at the acme of empires led
by Britain and the United States have not changed as economic
colonialism has replaced the direct, political management of third world
nations. English is still believed to be the inevitable world language”
(p.121).
I have dealt with these at length elsewhere (1998), so I shall only draw
attention here to particular aspects of this. First, the global spread
of English, as a good and righteous event was seen as already well on
its way in the 19th century. Guest (1838/1882), for example, argued that
English was “rapidly becoming the great medium of civilization, the
language of law and literature to the Hindoo, of commerce to the
African, of religion to the scattered islands of the Pacific” (p.703).
According to Read (1849, p.48, cited in Bailey, 1991, p.116), in a claim
that already in the middle of the 19th century reflects Mignolo’s phases
of colonial expansion: “Ours is the language of the arts and sciences,
of trade and commerce, of civilization and religious liberty… It is a
store-house of the varied knowledge which brings a nation within the
pale of civilization and Christianity… Already it is the language of
the Bible… So prevalent is this language already become, as to betoken
that it may soon become the language of international communication for
the world”. And for others, this would clearly be at the expense of
other languages: “Other languages will remain, but will remain only as
the obscure Patois of the world, while English will become the grand
medium for all the business of government, for commerce, for law, for
science, for literature, for philosophy, and divinity. Thus it will
really be a universal language for the great material and spiritual
interests of mankind” (George, 1867, p6)
Such statements continue on through the 20th century, with a particular
focus emerging on the suitability of English for its global role. In the
19th century George claimed that Britain had been “commissioned to teach
a noble language embodying the richest scientific and literary
treasures,” asserted that: “As the mind grows, language grows, and
adapts itself to the thinking of the people. Hence, a highly civilized
race, will ever have, a highly accomplished language. The English
tongue, is in all senses a very noble one. I apply the term noble with a
rigorous exactness” (George, 1867, p4). In the 20th century many writers
have insistently claimed that English has more words than any other
language and thus is a better medium for expression or thought than any
other. Claiborne (1983), for example, asserts that “For centuries, the
English-speaking peoples have plundered the world for words, even as
their military and industrial empire builders have plundered it for more
tangible goods”. This plundering has given English “the largest, most
variegated and most expressive vocabulary in the world. The total number
of English words lies somewhere between 400,000 – the number of current
entries in the largest English dictionaries – and 600,000 – the largest
figure that any expert is willing to be quoted on. By comparison, the
biggest French dictionaries have only about 150,000 entries, the biggest
Russian ones a mere 130,000” (p.3). The MacMillan dossier on
International English (1989) reiterates the point, claiming that “There
are more than 500,000 words in the Oxford English Dictionary. Compare
that with the vocabulary of German (about 200,000) and French (100,000)”
(p.2). Claiborne (1983) goes on to explain the implications of this
large vocabulary: “Like the wandering minstrel in The Mikado, with songs
for any and every occasion, English has the right word for it – whetever
‘it’ may be”. Thus, “It is the enormous and variegated lexicon of
English, far more than the mere numbers and geographical spread of its
speakers, that truly makes our native tongue marvellous – makes it, in
fact, a medium for the precise, vivid and subtle expression of thought
and emotion that has no equal, past or present. ” In case the
implications of this are not clear, Claiborne goes on to claim that
English is indeed “not merely a great language but the greatest” (p.4)
Globalization and worldliness
The emergence of English as a global language, then, needs to be
understood in relation to this colonial history. There are several
further implications of this understanding of English in relation to
globalization. I have been trying to stake out a view of globalization
and English that takes us beyond the dated and static theories of
linguistic imperialism and world englishes. Understanding Englishes in
the context of globalization suggests that various linguistic uses that
used to be more localized are now occurring on a global scale; these
global language uses are not determined by economic relations alone, but
rather are part of complex networks of communication and cultural flows.
In order to grasp such language use, we need to understand that we are
dealing here with radically new conditions and theories. Such use of
Other Englishes need to be understood both in terms of their historical
continuity and in terms of historical disjuncture; they also need to be
understood critically in terms of new forms of power, control and
destruction, as well as new forms of resistance, change and
appropriation.
The predominant paradigms through which we have come to look at English
in the world have remained states-centric conceptualizations of English
as a multinational language. Both the world Englishes framework, with
its focus on emergent national standards, with speakers of English
defined by national identity, and the imperialism and language rights
frameworks with English imperialism defined according to the
Americanization/ Englishization/ homogenization of the world (with
language rights as a language-defined rearguard action) work with
definitions of nations, languages, communities and constituences that
fail to question the colonial origins of the terms with which they
operate and lack a means to engage with current global relations.
Sonntag insightfully points out that the rights-based approach to
support for linguistic diversity and opposition to the English-Only
movement “has not fundamentally altered the American projection of its
vision of global English…because a rights-based approach to promoting
linguistic diversity reinforces the dominant liberal democratic project
rather than dismantling it” (p.25). This is a crucial point because it
points to a particular problem with the arguments against linguistic
imperialism and for language rights: They are conducted in exactly the
same frameworks as the politics they wish to oppose, or as Rajagopalan
(1999) suggests, “the very charges being pressed against the hegemony of
the English language and its putative imperialist pretensions themselves
bear the imprint of a way of thinking about language moulded in an
intellectual climate of excessive nationalist fervour and organized
marauding of the wealth of alien nationsЇan intellectual climate where
identities were invariably thought of in all-or-nothing terms” (p. 201)
As Sonntag argues, “the willingness to use the language of human rights
on the global level to frame local linguistic demands vis-а-vis global
English may merely be affirming the global vision projected by American
liberal democracy” (p.25).
And yet, we also need to understand that that the new conditions of
globalization require and produce new strategies of resistance.
Resistance and change is possible but it will not be achieved through
nostalgic longing for old identities. As Mignolo suggests, there is
another side to these global designs: there is always opposition,
resistance and appropriation. Drawing on the distinction used by the
Brazilian sociologist and cultural critic, Renato Ortiz, and the
Martinican philosopher and writer Edouard Glissant, between globalizaзaх
/ globalization and mundializaзaх/ mondialization, Mignolo suggests that
the first may be used to refer to these global designs, while the second
term, which I am here translating as worldliness Mignolo uses the
French, Spanish and Portuguese terms. I have chosen to use the term
worldliness, which I used in earlier attempts (e.g. 1994) to deal with
these issues, though I then used it to cover both globalization and
worldliness. It may be a more effective term in the more limited sense I
am trying to give it here., may be seen in terms of “local histories in
which global histories are enacted or where they have to be adapted,
adopted, transformed, and rearticulated” (Mignolo, p.278). This, then,
is the site of resistance, change, adaptation and reformulation. It is
akin to what Canagarajah (1999a) in his discussion of resistance to the
global spread of English describes as a ‘resistance perspective’,
highlighting the ways in which postcolonial subjects “may find ways to
negotiate, alter and oppose political structures, and reconstruct their
languages, cultures and identities to their advantage. The intention is
not to reject English, but to reconstitute it in more inclusive,
ethical, and democratic terms” (p.2). From this point of view, then,
there is always a response to the designs of empire, processes of
resistance, rearticulation, reconstitution.
Shifting how we think about English (or language more generally) opens
up several new perspectives: As Williams (1992) and Cameron (1995, 1997)
have observed, sociolinguistics has operated all too often with fixed
and static categories of class, gender and identity membership as if
these were transparent givens onto which language can be mapped. Cameron
argues that a more critical account suggests that “language is one of
the things that constitutes my identity as a particular kind of subject”
(1995, p.16). Instead of focusing on a ‘linguistics of community,’
(which is often based on a circularity of argument that suggests that a
speaker of x community speaks language y because they belong to x, and
the fact that they speak y proves they are a member of x), new work is
starting to focus on a ‘linguistics of contact’ (cf Pratt 1987),
“looking instead at the intricate ways in which people use language to
index social group affiliations in situations where the acceptability
and legitimacy of their doing so is open to question, incontrovertibly
guaranteed neither by ties of inheritance, ingroup socialisation, nor by
any other language ideology” (Rampton 1999, p 422). As Hill suggests,
the “kaleidoscopic, ludic, open flavor” of language use in domains of
popular culture profoundly challenges the methods of mainstream
sociolinguistics “by transgressing fundamental ideas of ‘speakerhood’”
(1999, pp 550-1).
These more recent approaches to language, identity and speakerhood open
up for further question the very notion of whether languages exist in
any useful sense of the word, and what indeed we are engaged in when we
use language (Pennycook, 2004; Reagan, 2004). As Hill goes on to
suggest, we need to get beyond the localized concept of ‘speech
community’ or ‘field site,’ located as they are in modernist concepts of
identity and location, and instead “attack the problem of the precise
situatedness of such phenomena in the flow of meaning with
macro-analytic theoretical tools” (1999, p.543).
To Appadurai’s (1996) picture of ‘global cultural flows’ – ethnoscapes,
mediascapes, technoscapes, financescapes and ideoscapes – it may be
worth adding linguascapes, in order to capture the relationship between
the ways in which some languages are no longer tied to locality or
community, but rather operate globally in conjunction with these other
scapes. As Kandiah (1998, p 100) argues, most approaches to the new
Englishes miss the crucial point that these Englishes “fundamentally
involve a radical act of semiotic reconstruction and reconstitution
which of itself confers native userhood on the subjects involved in the
act. ” The crucial point here, then, is that it is not so much whether
or not one is born in a particular type of community but rather what one
does with the language. At the point of semiotic reconstruction, English
users become native speakers of a new semiotic construction of language
that cannot be predefined as a first, second or foreign language.
While the boundaries of sociolinguistic thought have thus been usefully
traversed in some domains – questioning ways in which language, culture,
nation and identity have been mapped onto each other – most work in the
area of world Englishes has failed to develop any complex understanding
of current global conditions, continuing to operate with states-centric
models of language analysis while excluding divergent Other Englishes.
All too often we see the ‘multicultural character of English’ reduced to
monolithic national cultures as represented through the ‘high culture’
activities of English language writers. World Englishes is in some ways
akin to what Hutnyk (2000) calls the “liberal exoticist enthusiasm” (p
12) for hybridity in World Music, the “global sampling” (22) of WOMAD
festivals. My point here, of course, is not to discount postcolonial
writing in English and the questions it raises for the ownership of
English, but to seek a more complex, contemporary understanding of
cultural production in relationship to English, nations, culture,
representation and the world. As Scott (1999, p 215) argues, the “real
question before us is whether or not we take the vernacular voices of
the popular and their modes of self-fashioning seriously, and if we do,
how we think through their implications.”
If we take a domain such as hip-hop (see Pennycook 2003), we can start
to see both different ways of using and mixing languages, and different
circuits of influence. Hawaiian hip-hoppers Sudden Rush, for example,
who “have borrowed hip hop as a counter-hegemonic transcript that
challenges tourism and Western imperialism” (Akindes, 2001, p95), have
been influenced not only by US rap but also by other Pacific Islander
and Aotearoa-New Zealand hip-hop that constitutes a “Pacific Island
hip-hop diaspora” and a “pan-Pacific hip-hop network that has bypassed
the borders and restrictions of the popular music distribution industry”
(Mitchell 2001, p 31). Thus, not only is there “now scarcely a country
in the world that does not feature some form or mutation of rap music,
from the venerable and sophisticated hip-hop and rap scenes of France,
to the ‘swa-rap’ of Tanzania and Surinamese rap of Holland” (Krims,
2000, p.5), but many of these local scenes participate in complex orbits
of inluence.
Alongisde English, one of the most influential is French, producing an
intricate flow of influences between the vibrant music scenes in Paris
and Marseille in France; Dakar, Abidjan, and Libreville in West Africa,
and Montreal in Quebec. And like many urban popular cultures, French
language rap is also mixed with many other languages and influences;
thus the urban French rap scene is infused with Caribbean and North
African languages and cultures; in Quebec, as Sarkar, Winer and Sarkar
(2003) show, rappers draw on standard and non-standard English and
French, Haitian Creole, Spanish, and Arabic to make statements about
ethnic, racial and linguistic identity, using multilingual
code-switching to produce new, hybrid identities: “Tout moune qui talk
trash kiss mon black ass du nord.” And in Libreville, Gabon, rappers use
“relexified French” including “borrowings from Gabonese languages,
languages of migration, and English (standard and non-standard, but
especially slang) ” as well as verlan Verlan, as Doran (2004) explains,
“is a kind of linguistic bricolage marked by the multilingualism and
multiculturalism present in the communities where it is spoken, which
include immigrants from North Africa, West Africa, Asia and the
Caribbean. Given the marginal status of these communities vis-а-vis
elite Parisian culture, Verlan can ve viewed as an alternative code
which stands both literally and figuratively outside the hegemonic
norms of Parisian culture and language” (p.94). and “Libreville popular
speech and neologisms” (p.116), so that they are “inserted into large
networks of communication that confer on them a plurality of identities”
using a wide “diversity of languages with their variants, along with
their functioning as markers of identity (of being Gabonese, African, or
an urbanite) ” (Auzanneau, 2002, p.120):
And across East/Southeast Asia, numerous cross-influences and
collaborations are also emerging, mixing English and local languages.
Thus Hong Kong DJ Tommy’s compilation, ‘Respect for Da Chopstick Hip
Hop’ – the title itself, of course, a play on global (Respect/ Da) and
local (Chopstick Hip Hop) elements – features MC Yan from Hong Kong,
K-One, MC Ill and Jaguar from Japan, and Meta and Joosuc from Korea,
with tracks sung in English, Cantonese, Japanese and Korean. Too Phat’s
collaborative track, 6 Mcs, on their CD 360°, includes tracks from Joe
Flizzow and Malique from Malaysia, Weapon X from Australia, Freestyle
(US), Vandal (Canada) and Promoe (Sweden). These are some of the
circuits of language use, play and invention that are the new language
communities, subcultural empires that identify across national and
linguistic boundaries, that borrow, shift, mix and remake language in a
new state of flow and flux.
Bibliography
1. Akindes, Fay Yokomizo. 2001. Sudden rush: Na Mele Paleoleo (Hawaiian
Rap) as liberatory discourse. Discourse 23 (1) 82-98.
2. Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of
Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
3. Auzanneau, M (2002) Rap in Libreville, Gabon: An urban
sociolinguistic space. In. A-P Durand (Ed) Black, Blanc, Beur: Rap music
and hip-hop culture in the Francophone world. Lanham, Maryland: The
Scarecrow Press. (pp 106-123).
4. Bailey, Richard. 1991 Images of English: A cultural history of the
language. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
5. Cameron, Deborah. 1995. Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge.
6. Canagarajah, Suresh. 1999a. Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in
English Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7. Canagarajah, Suresh. 1999b On EFL teachers, awareness and agency. ELT
Journal 53 (3) 207-214.
8. Claiborne, R. (1983). The life and times of the English language: The
history of our marvellous tongue. London: Bloomsbury.
9. Crawford, Anne. 1999 “’We can’t all understand the whites’ language’:
an analysis of monolingual health services in a multilingual society”.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language.136, 27-45
10. Crystal, David. 1997. English as a global language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
11. Dasgupta, Probal. 1993. The Otherness of English: India’s Auntie
Tongue Syndrome. New Delhi: Sage Publications
12. Dua, Hans. 1994. Hegemony of English. Mysore: Yashoda Publications
13. George, J. (1867). The mission of Great Britain to the world, or
some of the lessons which she is now teaching. Toronto: Dudley and
Burns.
14. Guest, E. (1882). A history of English rhythms. London: George Bell
and Sons (Original version 1838).
15. Graddol, David. 1997. The Future of English? London: British
Council.
16. Han Suyin (1956)… And the Rain my Drink. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
17. Hanson, John. 1997. The mother of all tongues. Review of D. Crystal,
English as a Global Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Times Higher Education Supplement, 1288, July 11, 1997. p22.
18. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press
19. Hill, Jane. 1999. Styling locally, styling globally: What does it
mean? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3/4 542-556.
20. Holborow, Marnie. 1999. The Politics of English: A Marxist View of
Language. London: Sage Publications
21. Hutnyk, John. 2000. Critique of Exotica: Music, Politics and the
Culture Industry London: Pluto Press
22. Kachru, Braj. 1985. Standards, codification, and sociolinguistic
realism: The English language in the Outer Circle. In R. Quirk and H. G.
Widdowson (Eds) English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language
and Literatures Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.11-30.
23. Kachru, Braj. 1986. The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions
and Models of Nonnative Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon.
24. Kachru, Braj. 1997. World Englishes and English-using communities.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics.17, 66-87.
25. Kachru, Braj and Cecil Nelson. 1996. World Englishes. In Sandra
McKay and Nancy Hornberger (Eds) Sociolinguistics in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,.71-102.
26. Kandiah, Thiru. 1998. Epiphanies of the deathless native users’
manifold avatars: A post-colonial perspective on the native-speaker. In
Rajendra Singh (Ed) The Native Speaker: Multilingual Perspectives. New
Delhi: Sage Publications.79-110
27. Kramsch, C (1999) Global and local identities in the contact zone.
In C Gnutzmann (Ed) Teaching and learning English as a global language:
Native and non-native perspectives. Tьbingen: Stauffenburg Verlag, pp
131-143.
28. Krims, A. (2000) Rap music and the poetics of identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
29. Krishnaswamy, N. and Archana Burde. 1998. The Politics of Indians’
English: Linguistic Colonialism and the Expanding English Empire. Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
30. Loh Fook Seng, P. (1970) ‘The nineteenth century British approach to
Malay education’, Jurnal Pendidekan, 1 (1), 105-115.
31. Lugard, F. D. (1910) Hong Kong University. Objects, history, present
position and prospects. Hong Kong: Noronha.
32. Makoni, S and A Pennycook (Eds) (In press) Disinventing language
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
33. Mignolo, Walter. 2000. Local Histories/ Global Designs: Coloniality,
Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
34. Mitchell, Tony. 2001. Introduction: Another root – Hip-Hop outside
the USA. In Tony Mitchell (Ed) Global Noise: Rap and Hip-Hop Outside the
USA. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press.1-38.
35. Mufwene, Salikoko. 1994. New Englishes and criteria for naming them.
World Englishes, 13/1: 21-31.
36. Mufwene, Salikoko. 1998. Native speaker, proficient speaker and
norms. In Rajendra Singh (Ed) The Native Speaker: Multilingual
Perspectives. New Delhi: Sage Publications.111-123.
37. Ordoсez, E 1999 “English and decolonization”. Journal of Asian
English Studies, 2 (1&2), 17-21
38. Parakrama, Arjuna. 1995. De-hegemonizing Language Standards:
Learning From (Post) colonial Englishes About ‘English’. Basingstoke:
MacMillan.
39. Pennycook, A. (1998) English and the Discourses of Colonialism.
London: Routledge
40. Pennycook, A (2000) Language, ideology and hindsight: lessons from
colonial language policies. In T. Ricento (Ed) Ideology, politics and
language policies: Focus on English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins (49-66)
41. Pennycook, A. (2002) Language policy and docile bodies: Hong Kong
and governmentality. In J. Tollefson (Ed) Language policies in
education: Critical issues Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, (pp91-110).
42. Pennycook, Alastair. 2002. Turning English inside out. Indian
Journal of Applied Linguistics 28/2: 25-43
43. Pennycook, Alastair. 2003. Beyond homogeny and heterogeny: English
as a global and worldly language. In C. Mair (Ed) The Cultural Politics
of English. Amsterdam: Rodopi
44. Pennycook, Alastair. 2004. Disciplinarity, performativity, and
language studies. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An International
Journal.1/1, 1-19
45. Pennycook, A and S Coutand-Marin (2003) Teaching English as a
Missionary Language. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of
Education 17/3, 337-353
46. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
47. Phillipson, R. 1994, English language spread policy. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language, 107, pp7-24.
48. Phillipson, Robert. 1999. Voice in global English: Unheard chords in
Crystal loud and clear. Review of David Crystal, English as a Global
Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Applied Linguistics
20/2: 265-276.
49. Pratt, Mary Louise. 1987. Linguistic utopias. In N. Fabb et al (Eds)
The Linguistics of Writing. Manchester: Manchester University
Press.48-66.
50. Rajagopalan, Kanavillil. 1999. Of EFL teachers, conscience and
cowardice. ELT Journal 53/3: 200-206.
51. Rampton, Ben. 1995. Crossing: Language and Ethnicity Among
Adolescents. London: Longman.
52. Rampton, Ben. 1999. Styling the Other: Introduction. Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 3/4: 421-427.
53. Reagan, T 2004 Objectification, positivism and language studies: A
reconsideration. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An International
Journal.1/1, 41-60.
54. Report (1882) Report of the Education Commission appointed by His
Excellency Sir John Pope Hennessy, K. C. M. G… to consider certain
questions connected with Education in Hong Kong, 1882. Hong Kong
Government (1883)
55. .
56. Sarkar, M, Winer, L and Sarkar K (2003) Multilingual code-switching
in Montreal hip-hop: Mayhem meets method or, ‘Tout moune qui talk trash
kiss mon black ass do nord’. Proceedings of the 4th International
Symposium on Bilingualism.
57. Scott, David. 1999. Refashioning Futures: Criticism After
Postcoloniality. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
58. Singh, J. (1996) Colonial Narratives/Cultural Dialogues:
“Discoveries of India in the Language of Colonialism. London: Routledge
59. Singh, Udaya Narayana. 1998. Introduction by the series editor. In
Rajendra Singh (Ed) The Native Speaker: Multilingual Perspectives. New
Delhi: Sage Publications.11-25
60. Sonntag, Selma 2003, The local politics of global English: Case
studies in linguistic globalization. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books
61. Straits Settlements (Various years) Straits Settlements Annual
Departmental Reports. Singapore: Government Printing Office.
62. Tollefson, J. (2000) Policy and ideology in the spread of English.
In J. K. Hall and W. Eggington (Eds) The sociopolitics of English
language teaching. Clevedon: Multilingual matters.
63. Tsuda, Yukio. 1994. The diffusion of English: Its impact on culture
and communication. Keio Communication Review 16: 49-61.
64. Williams, Glyn. 1992. Sociolinguistics: A Sociological Critique.
London: Routledge.
65. Yano, Yasukata. 2001. World Englishes in 2000 and beyond. World
Englishes 20/2: 119-131.
Нашли опечатку? Выделите и нажмите CTRL+Enter
