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