Geographically, English is the most widespread language on earth. It’s widely spoken on six countries, and is the official language, or one of the official languages, in 55 countries. 400-500 million people speak it as their native language (second only to Mandarin Chinese, which has about 700 million native speakers). In addition, roughly the same number speak English as their second language, or use it in their daily lives for business, study and so on. In other words, one is every 6-7 people on our planet regularly uses some sort of English – and the percentage is growing all the time. Experts predict English language to be widespread greatly in following decades, as it’s already took over up to one billion people all over the world and this number is growing each day. The following are a few of the many reasons why English is so widely spoken.



*English is the official language in many of Britain’s former colonies, such as America, Australia and New Zealand.

* The economic power of Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries, and of the US in the 20th century, helped to make English the language of the world trade. Entertainment has helped to spread the use of English, because of the worldwide popularity of English-language films, TV programmes and pop music.

Pennycook in his book gives explanations to such a rapid and remarkable spread of a single language throughout the world.

In January 1988 the British House of Lords held a debate on cultural

diplomacy in which Lord St John Fawsley (former Conservative Minister

for the Arts) stated: “If I were asked what had been this country’s

three greatest contributions to world civilization I should reply

unhesitatingly: the common law, parliamentary government, English

language and literature. And at the heart of all three lies the idea

of liberty. I do not believe that we can export our institutions

indiscriminately, but by informing people of how they work and

flourish, by imparting thoughts about them, we can enhance the chances

for freedom elsewhere." This quote mirrors claims made in 1935 by

the Prince of Wales (later Edward VII) on the foundation of the

British Council: “Our object is to assist the largest number possible

to appreciate fully the glories of our literature, our contribution to

the arts and sciences, and our pre-eminent contribution to political

practice. This can best be achieved by promoting the study of

language abroad."

In both of these speeches the planned spreading of English throughout

the world is directly linked to rosy political objectives of an

unabashedly colonial kind. This viewpoint was supported by Hindmarsh

(1978) who on the reason English has become so widespread remarked:

"the world has opted for English, and the world knows what it wants ,

what will satisfy its needs." Pennycook begins his book by explaining

the traditional view that the dominant discourse on English as an

international language shows the spread to be “natural, neutral and

beneficial" and this is certainly supported by a number of academics.

However the perspective I would like to examine is that of the school

of thought which believes that colonialism has not come to an end but

is today largely prosecuted by non-military means. Most notably the

work of Phillipson in his 1992 book entitled “Linguistic

Imperialism". It has been said since of Phillipson’s work that it’s

most original feature is that it provides “the first systematic

examination of the enormous significance of language to most

neo-colonial enterprises" (Daly, 1995). In his work Phillipson

considers the role of language to be important enough to merit the

development of a new concept “linguicism" which he sees as being akin

to racism. Linguicism for Phillipson, is an assembly of “ideologies,

structures and practices which are used to legitimate, effectuate and

reproduce an unequal division of power and resources (both material

and immaterial) between groups which are defined on the basis of

language".

One important aspect of linguicism is the teaching of English as a

foreign and second language and its maintenance as a “national"

language in communities whose mother tongue is something other than

English. Attempts to make English a global language have both a

complex economic and political history, Phillipson and his followers

would like to change the state of affairs as they see them, they point

out the cultural, social, and psychological damage which can be

inflicted by the fallacies of the English language teaching

profession.. They speculate that the main problem is the monolingual

emphasis with which English is often taught. There are definite

disadvantages to teaching any language in this fashion. Language is

often considered to be a sensitive indicator of the relationship

between an individual and any given social group. It is an integral

part of ourselves, it permeates our very thinking, the way we view the

world, morality and social behaviour. For this very reason it

becomes clear that language teaching is a matter which should be

handled sensitively.

A question put forward by Canagarajah (1999) questions the very

motives of those who purvey monolingual language teaching as

"beneficial" for the people to whom it is taught, he asks “does

English offer Third world countries a resource that will help them in

their development, as Western governments and development agencies

would claim or is it a “Trojan Horse" (Cooke 1988), whose effect is to

perpetuate their dependence?". It would seem that his somewhat

cynical perspective may have a ring of truth; decision making elites

in developing countries have usually been persuaded to share the

interests of their neo-colonial patrons. Sir Anthony Parsons, former

Foreign Policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher, once stated this policy

without disguise in a rare moment of brutal honesty thinly veiled as

national pride, and was quoted by the British Council in a recruitment

brochure in 1988: “It is really dazzlingly obvious. If you are

thoroughly familiar with someone else’s language and literature, if

you know and love the country, the arts, the people, you will be

instinctively disposed to buy goods from them rather than a less well

known source, to support them actively when you consider them to be

right and to avoid criticizing them too fiercely when you regard them

as being in the wrong." One could say this makes the massive annual

enlistment of international students by British Universities seem a

much less disinterested and beneficent process than their prospectuses

could intimate.

This theory is supported and expounded upon by Toves Skutnabb-Kangas

(2000) who talks about language being used for “control and

domination, resistance and self-determination." He talks of a

calculating three step process used to persuade individuals to replace

their mother tongue with another language, and believes this is

usually for the financial, social or cultural gain of the language’s

country of origin. He explains that in order to do this, one must

invalidate the languages and culture of the area or social group in

question. This is achieved by presenting the minority languages as

wanting or as handicaps. The three steps through which this achieved

are: glorification of the dominant/majority group, its language,

culture, norms traditions, institutions, level of development,

observance of particular human rights and so on; stigmatization and

devaluation of the minorities/subordinate groups and their language,

culture and beliefs in order to make them seem primitive,

non-civilized, backward and unable to adapt to postmodern

technological “democratic" information societies; rationalization of

their relationship in every sphere, economically, politically,

educationally, linguistically. So that every action of the dominant

group is seen as a beneficial act for the minority group (so they are

e.g. helping, giving aid, teaching democracy etc.) Skutnabb-Kangas

provides examples of glorification: “the language of the superior

ethno-national group (Nazi ideology), stigmatization “. The English

Cape Town newspaper “The Cape Times" wrote in 1906 “Afrikaans is the

confused utterance of half-articulated patois" (quoted in Prague

1995a:7) , with regard to rationalization Geoffrey Best shows that

satirical parodies of French liberation were not far from truthful :"

We have arrived and you are free. Anyone found on the street after

sunset will be shot."

In order to disprove the fact that language spread is often not the

rosy picture painted by politicians the effect on the recipients of

this “education" must be examined, after all most “good deeds" are far

from altruistic and usually have benefits or advantages for the

"doer", some believe true altruism doesn’t exist at all. So unless

this politically selfish “stealth tactic" causes any damage to those

who supposedly benefit is there any harm in its provision?

Kramsch (1998) puts forward the Sapir’s Whorf principle of linguistic

relativity as evidence that taking away someone’s language or making

it redundant in everyday life is actually culturally damaging, as

according to the theory different languages offer different ways of

perceiving and expressing the world around us, thus leading their

speakers to conceive the world in different ways. If this intrinsic

link to one’s birth culture is removed surely there will be some

harmful effect? Proof of this is perhaps found in various resistances

shown to English Language Teaching throughout history and the reasons

its resistors provide.

English has a history of imposition for material and political reasons

in most periphery communities more often than not it is in competition

with local/native languages. In 1796 the British colonized the

ethno-linguistically diverse island of Ceylon under one political

umbrella, they imposed English as the national language and went about

setting up English schools at both secondary and Tertiary levels, this

education not only included language lessons but discipline (in

keeping with that usually found in British public schools) and

Protestant teachings. Students were often expected to board to be

protected from outside cultural and linguistic influence. This

education was needed for particular jobs but was only available to

those able to pay the fees, Christians were given preferential

treatment with regard to admission and most students finished their

education having been converted to Christianity regardless of previous

cultural and religious beliefs, in the main natives competed to be

given an English education, mainly because the Tamils defined

themselves by religion and not language. The native “church" devised

a mission which offered Western (English) scholarships to students who

promised not to desert their religion, this enabled natives to embrace

the new language without in the main losing cultural identity. This

is not to say the program was without opposition, many natives

accepted the Christianity they were compelled to in public, but

continued to practice Hinduism in private, not all forms of opposition

were as subtle as this. Tamil scholars were sometimes vocal with

regard to the “English only" education of younger generations, Amanda

Coomarasamy called the English educated natives a “generation of

spiritual bastards" (1946:32) adding in explanation: “A single

generation of English education suffices to break the threads of

tradition and to create a nondescript and superficial being deprived

of all roots." A fellow scholar Sir Arunachalam commented:"The root

of the evil in Ceylon is that the vernacular is neglected".

(Undated: 261-2).

An example from India is shown by the behavior of the family of the

poet Tagore who outwardly appeared to have accepted many foreign

customs, but at home still held strong feelings of national and

cultural pride, collected Bengali literature and |on one occasion.

Write my father a letter in English it was promptly returned to the

writer" (Tagore 1992: 104-105 originally published 1911). This kind

of behavior was also seen in Indian schools, Lachman Khubchandani

related in 1994 (Pune, India) that he had as a pupil, from the age of

twelve, written in every English textbook: “I dream of a time when

English will be kicked out of my country".

These accounts and statements are all evidence to the fact that

forcing a language on a society, not in conjunction with but, at the

expense of their mother tongue obviously creates social, cultural and

even emotional discord in those it is foisted upon.

As mentioned previously language is such an integral part of being, of

thinking and feeling. It is in the words of Kramsch “The arena in

which political and cultural allegiances and loyalties are fought out".

Language can be used for alike and opposite results; suppression

and liberation, incapacitation and facilitation. So there is equally

evidence which shows the spread of English as beneficial to a society.

Phillipson himself refers to the relative success story which is

Singapore.

Singapore has four official languages, Chinese, Tamil, Malay and

English, but practically all children are educated in the latter. They

are also expected to study their mother tongue and its social,

cultural and ethnic roots (Kuo and Judd 1988 13-14). University

education is only offered in English and it is government policy to

establish English as Singapore’s language of business, industrial and

public sectors. The economy is thriving, is it possible that

"modernization" has actually taken place in the way many governments

have promised, but not delivered, through the medium of language?

Current policy promotes English alongside the maintenance of Asian

values. The Prime Minister himself has been quoted as saying

"foreign talents can impart their skills, not their values, to the

Singaporeans". An argument whilst admirable surely cannot prevent the

infiltration of Western culture? This and the possibility that in the

future after reaping the benefits of Western influence and language,

Singapore may declare linguistic indepence shows more perhaps about

the structural context of linguistic imperialism in Singapore than

evidence in support of linguistic imperialism.

It would seem that English language teaching and linguistic

imperialism haven’t had an overtly negative impact in Singapore, but

in other societies it has led to the death or disuse of many languages

for example, the U.S. State of California has approximately 50

indigenous languages but almost 100% of them are no longer learned by

children (The Philadelphia enquirer 1994: 221). Of Canada’s 53 native

languages 43 were said to be on the verge of extinction in a 1990

report by the House of Commons Committee on aboriginal affairs, an

additio