Linguistic Imperialism, linguistic democracy and
English language teaching∗
Mohammad Aliakbari
Ilam University - Iran
maliakbari@hotmail
Abstract
In response to the assumptions of linguistic imperialism and cultural homogeneity, especially explained and reacted to in Phillipson (1992), the present article raises ten contradictory arguments, which put the native speakers’ hegemony in international uses of English under question. Advocating cultural awareness, and intercultural competence, this article calls for the interlocutors’ mutual appreciation and cooperation of cultures to strengthen international relationships. Finally through an attempt to specify the problems with the 'native speakers’ dependency view, the article proposes linguistic democracy as the alternative paradigm and elaborates on recognition of cultural diversity in ELT.
Key words: linguistic imperialism, linguistic democracy, biculturalism, and language–culture relationship.
Introduction
With respect to culture, some sense of powerlessness and inferiority has been thought of on the part of the language learners, which implies their dependability to native speakers (Valdes 1986; Phillipson 1992). This position is most radically articulated in Philipson (1992) as he considers that the relationship between the native English speaking community and the foreign or second language learning countries represents a sort of core-periphery connection. "The tenets of ELT have ideological and structural consequences. They serve to
∗ This paper was prepared when the author was a visiting scholar at the Center for Applied Linguistics and Languages at Griffith University, Australia during 2001-2002 academic year.
strengthen the hold of the centre over the periphery (Phillipson 1992: 192). Bisong (1995) reviews the main thread of Phillipson’s explanation of linguistic imperialism as follows. “The linguistic relation between the center and periphery has been and continues to be one of dominant and dominated languages. English, the author maintains, was originally imposed on a number of countries in the periphery and has through deliberate contrivance, successfully displaced, or replaced some of the indigenous languages of these countries. The dominance of English has also resulted in the imposition
of the Anglo-Saxon Judeo-Christian culture that goes with it so that indigenous cultures have been undervalued and marginalised” (Bisong 1995: 123). Though Phillipson reacted to the idea in his own terms, this article also intends to highlight ten major problems with what has long been taken for granted by the advocates or the followers of such views. Yet, it is important to be clear that the upcoming position and discussions deal primarily with the English that is used in an international context. And the interactions between English native speakers’ are deliberately excluded from the arguments that follow.
The conceptual ambiguity
A basic problem with native speakers' dependency position is the visible imprecision and simplification in the concept of 'native speaker' (e.g. Kachru 1982; Rampton 1990; Crystal 1992; Kramsch 1993). The differences among English speaking communities cannot be taken for granted. This diversity makes an inclusive and comprehensive definition or description bewildering, even impossible. Native speakers may share as much homogenizing features as they are known for their differences. This point is rightly recognized in Kramsch (1993) when she argues that the notion of a generic native speaker has become so diversified that it has lost its meaning. She further asserts that the concept of native speaker must be put in question from both linguistic and pragmatic perspectives. Kachru (1982)
and Rampton (1990) also put emphasis on the
dissatisfaction with the terms 'native speaker' and 'mother tongue'. The latter seems more dissatisfied since he complains “the whole mystique of the native speaker and the mother tongue should probably be quietly dropped from the linguist’s set of professional myths about language” (Rampton 1990: 97). Generally speaking, the concept of 'native speaker', as it is used in the field, appears abstract, subjective, unrealistic and simplistic and attempts to undermine or minimise the differences among native speakers does not change the issue. It is abstract because it implies an idealised native speaker with perfect mastery of English. It is unrealistic in that it ignores the linguistic and cultural heterogeneity of native speaker communities. What we are witnessing is a collection of native speaker varieties not a single 'native speaker pattern'. It is subjective because in undermining the differences it creates an imaginary perception of the concept. More importantly, it is simplistic since it translates the growing tendency to learn English as a wish to be integrated to the native speaking communities.characterise
The problem of representatives or language models
According to Phillipson, the term Core English Speaking Countries covers Britain and the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Such diversified native speaking population naturally has led to
an ambiguity in selecting a language model for the core. Though the proposed homogeneity implies adherence to a commonly agreed upon language model and the eventual superiority of the core, diversity among native English speaking communities limits the possibility of such an achievement. Since no group has officially, regionally or socially been proposed or accepted superior, there may be no criteria for adopting a single model. Besides, as Rampton (1990) insists nationality and ethnicity are not the same as language ability and language allegiance. Thus, the basic question of, w ho is the most representative to be taken as a model for non-native speakers? remains unanswered. Even if varieties as Elaborated code, Educated English, Standard English, Oxford English or RP can
be accepted as the model, it indirectly forces a good number of native speakers to learn that variety.
In addition to their linguistic differences, native speakers' cultural diversity also restricts the possibility of such a selection. The literature suggests that there exists no unique culture common to all native speakers and almost every country is multicultural. For instance, Smith (1978) and Kachru (1982) note that the culture of the United Kingdom is certainly not similar to that of the United States, Canada, or Australia. Therefore, the possibility of finding an agreed upon representative is quite rare.
The problem of cooperation and collaboration
Linguistic homogeneity position strongly violates the cooperative principle proposed and introduced by Grice (1975). As a cooperative principle or teamwork, communication demands cooperation on both sides. Both the speaker and the listener are required to contribute to overcome an information gap or a misunderstanding. In other words overcoming misunderstandings requires a shared commitment through which both sides cooperate to resolve the problem. In cases of native/non-native communication, insistence on culture-specific points on either side may lead to a communication breakdown. Thus participants in a communication are expected to avoid such topics and tend to base their interaction on the commonalities. Concerning the fact that in most interactions the interlocutors have equal status in giving and receiving information, avoiding accommodation in either side threatens the success of communication. Thus, both sides are recommended to refrain from cultural ambiguity and tune to manageable units. Improving global relationship through English may be achieved not through the native speakers' superiority, but through their admitting equal statues in the world communication.
The problem of direction
The position in question implies that language use always aims at native speaker models. It perpetuates the notion of the ideal native speaker and assumes that learners are deficient. However, t
he question is not whether learners should observe native linguistic patterns but whether they should adopt every behaviour and attitude of native speakers. It is not always matter that the learners initiate the communication for their gain but native speakers increasingly need to communicate with non-native speakers to improve their own capital. Thus, there might be no convincing reason for approving the one-way direction of communication. This position is also supported by a vast number of researchers in the field (e.g. Smith and Bisazza 1982; Campbell et al. 1982; Smith and Rafiqzad 1979) in that they generally argue for native speakers’ need for training in using English internationally. Moreover, in the present condition of the world, the range of the nonnative/nonnative interactions, if not far greater than the interactions among native/nonnative ones, is highly noticeable. Thus, with such an indisputable increase in the range of nonnative/nonnative interactions the question of direction to native speakers or the one-way overflow of information appears useless, at least impractical.
The problem of minimizing the learners' role
Defining hegemony as the dominant ideas that people take for granted, Phillipson asserts that English has a hegemonic position in many former colonies. "English linguistic hegemony can be understood as referring to the explicit and implicit values, beliefs, purposes, and activities, which characterise the ELT profession and which contribute to the maintenance of English as dominant language"(Phillipson 1992:
73). It seems that in cultural hegemony position, adopting the culture of native speakers has been considered as an undoubted truth and learners have been provided with no choice for culture. A major problem with this argument is that, through resorting to the culture of the

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。