Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Linguistic Imperialism: Robert Phillipson
Linguistic Imperialism: Robert Phillipson
ROBERT PHILLIPSON
The study of linguistic imperialism focuses on how and why certain languages dominate
internationally, and attempts to account for such dominance in a theoretically informed
way. Many issues can be clarified: the role of language policy in empires (British,
French, Japanese, etc.); how languages from Europe were established on other continents,
generally at the expense of local languages; whether the languages that colonialism took
to Africa and Asia now form a useful bond with the international community, and are
necessary for national unity internally, or are a bridgehead for Western interests,
permitting the continuation of marginalization and exploitation. In a globalizing world,
has English shifted from serving Anglo-American interests into a more equitable
instrument of communication for diverse users? Or do US corporate and military
dominance worldwide and the neoliberal economy constitute a new form of empire that
consolidates a single imperial language? Can the active suppression of languages such as
Kurdish in Turkey or of Tibetan and Uyghur in China be seen as linguistic imperialism?
With the increasing importance of China globally, will the vigorous promotion of Chinese
internationally convert into a novel form of linguistic imperialism?
The evidence for or against linguistic imperialism can be investigated empirically in a
given context. Linguistic imperialism entails the following (Phillipson, 1992, 2009):
2
that celebrate the current dominance of English in a wide range of countries (Bunce,
Phillipson, Rapatahana & Tupas, 2016). An analysis of the links between linguistics and
the furtherance of the French colonial cause documents how French “consumed” other
languages by processes of linguistic cannibalism, glottophagie (Calvet, 1974). Linguistic
genocide, as defined in work on the United Nations genocide convention, is in fact still
practiced widely in the modern world when groups are forcibly assimilated to the
dominant culture and its language (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000); such policies can also be
seen as a crime against humanity (Skutnabb-Kangas & Dunbar, 2010).
3
Education in US colonies functioned along similar lines. In the Philippines, there was
an insistence on an exclusive use of English in education from 1898 to 1940:
public education, specifically language and literature education during the American colonial period,
was designed to directly support American colonialism. The combined power of the canon,
curriculum, and pedagogy constituted the ideological strategies resulting in rationalizing,
naturalizing, and legitimizing myths about colonial relationships and realities. (Martin, 2002, p. 210)
Despite differences in the articulation of policies in the French and British empires,
what they had in common was the low status accorded to dominated languages, whether
these were ignored or used in the early years of education; a very small proportion of the
population in formal education, especially after the lower grades; local traditions and
educational practice being ignored; unsuitable education being provided; an explicit
policy of “civilizing the natives,” and the master language being attributed civilizing
properties (Phillipson, 1992, pp. 127–8). These generalizations are valid, even if policies
were in fact worked out ad hoc in a wide variety of situations. In French colonies, the
goal of producing a black elite entailed using the educational content and methods of
metropolitan France. In the British empire, “English was the official vehicle and the
magic formula to colonial élitedom” (Ngũgĩ, 1985, p. 115).
The World Bank has played a decisive role in funding education in “developing”
countries. Its policies have continued the linguistic imperialism of the colonial and early
postcolonial periods:
The World Bank’s real position … encourages the consolidation of the imperial languages in Africa.
… the World Bank does not seem to regard the linguistic Africanisation of the whole of primary
education as an effort that is worth its consideration. Its publication on strategies for stabilising and
revitalising universities, for example makes absolutely no mention of the place of language at this
tertiary level of African education. (Mazrui, 1997, p. 39)
Fishman, Conrad, and Rubal-Lopez’s Post-Imperial English (1996) has a wealth of
empirical description of the functions of English in many contexts. The 29 contributors to
the volume were specifically asked to assess whether linguistic imperialism was in force
in the country studies they were responsible for. They all address the issue, but without
assessing whether there might be more valid ways of coming to grips with theorizing the
dominance of English.
Scholars who are skeptical about linguistic imperialism as an explanatory model for
the way English has been consolidated worldwide tend to analyze matters as though there
is a strict choice between (a) active US–UK promotion of English, supported by linguicist
policies that favor it over other languages, and (b) colonized people actively wishing to
learn English because of the economic, social, political, and cultural doors that it opens.
Matters are summed up as though (a) involves imposition, whereas (b) is a “free” choice
(e.g., Kirkpatrick, 2007, pp. 35–7). This is a false dichotomy: Neither imposition nor
freedom is context-free. Push and pull factors both contribute to linguistic imperialism..
Neoliberalism and Western-dominated globalization have strengthened English (Piller
and Cho 2013), as has the expansion of NATO (Templer 2016), with the US military
intervening whenever “vital interests” are at risk. Financial and economic crises since
2008 have exposed instability and the increased influence of China, but hitherto English
has served to consolidate the interests of the powerful globally and locally and to
maintain an exploitative world order that can disenfranchise speakers of other languages.
4
The strong position of English in former colonies represents a continuation of the
policies of colonial times. It has strengthened an elite class, with the effect that in India
“Over the post-Independence years, English has become the single most important
predictor of socio-economic mobility.… With the globalized economy, English education
widens the discrepancy between the social classes” (Mohanty, 2006, pp. 268–9).
The USA and the UK coordinated efforts to promote English as a “global” language
from the 1950s. English language education as propagated by the British and Americans
builds on five tenets, each of which is false: the monolingual fallacy, the native speaker
fallacy, the early start fallacy, the maximum exposure fallacy, and the subtractive fallacy
(Phillipson 1992, pp. 183–218). These underpin the profitable global English teaching
business. This persists in dispatching unqualified native speakers to teach in Asia
(Phillipson 2016a).
5
The management of multilingualism in European Union institutions is exceptionally
complicated. Market forces are strengthening the position of English in member states as
well as in the EU system. There is therefore a risk of other languages being dispossessed
of their linguistic capital. The EU is seen by some political scientists as an empire, with
its language policies constituting linguistic imperialism (Phillipson 2016b).
The immense volume of scientific publication in English also serves to consolidate a
hierarchy of languages. Scholars from the Spanish-speaking world increasingly need to
publish in English (Mar-Molinero, 2010).
Linguistic imperialism is a reality in many contexts worldwide. Among the extreme
cases are the oppression of Kurds in Turkey and of linguistic minorities in China,
especially in Tibet and in the Xinjiang Uyghur region. For an authoritative survey of
language rights worldwide, see the four volumes compiled by Skutnabb-Kangas and
Phillipson in 2017.
Cross-references
wbeal277
wbeal284
wbeal598
wbeal871
wbeal1026
References
Calvet, L.-J. (1974). Linguistique et colonialisme: Petit traité de glottophagie. Paris, France: Payot.
Bunce, P., Phillipson, R. Rapatahana, V. & Tupas, R. F. (Eds.) (2016). Why English? Confronting the
Hydra. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Canagarajah, S. A. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Fanon, F. (1952). Peau noire masques blancs. Paris, France: Éditions du Seuil.
Fishman, J. A., Conrad, A. W., & Rubal-Lopez, A. (Eds.). (1996). Post-imperial English. Status change in
former British and American colonies, 1940–1990. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
Howe, S. (2002). Empire, a very short introduction. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Illich, I. (1981). Shadow work. Boston, MA: Marion Boyars.
Jenkins, G. H. (2007). A concise history of Wales. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes. Implications for international communication and English
Language Teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Mar-Molinero, C. (2010). The spread of global Spanish: From Cervantes to reggaetón. In N. Coupland
(Ed.), The handbook of language and globalization (pp. 162–81). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Martin, I. P. (2002). Canon and pedagogy: The role of American colonial education in defining standards
for Philippine literature. In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), Englishes in Asia: Communication, identity, power and
education (pp. 201–11). Melbourne, Australia: Language Australia.
Mazrui, A. A. (1997). The World Bank, the language question and the future of African education. Race
and Class, 38(3), 35–48.
Mohanty, A. (2006). Multilingualism and predicaments of education in India. In O. García, T. Skutnabb-
Kangas, & M. E. Torres-Guzmán (Eds.), Imagining multilingual schools. Languages in education and
glocalization (pp. 262–83). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Mühlhäusler, P. (1996). Linguistic ecology. Language change and linguistic imperialism in the Pacific
region. London, England: Routledge.
6
Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o (1985, April/June). The language of African literature. New Left Review, pp. 109–27.
Ostler, N. (2005). Empires of the word. A language history of the world. London: HarperCollins.
Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the Discourses of Colonialism. New York, NY: Routledge.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, R. (2009). Linguistic imperialism continued. New York, NY: Routledge.
Phillipson, R. (2012). How to strengthen the sociolinguistics of globalization: A review article based on
challenges in The sociolinguistics of globalization by Jan Blommaert. Critical Discourse Studies 9(4):
pp. 407–414.
Phillipson, Robert (2016a). Native speakers in linguistic imperialism. Journal of Critical Education Policy
Studies, volume 14, number 3 (December), 80-96.
Phillipson, R. (2016b). Linguistic imperialism of and in the European Union. In H. Behr and J. Stivachtis
(Eds.), Revisiting the European Union as an empire (pp. 134-163), London: Routledge.
Phillipson, R. (2017). Myths and realities of ‘global' English. Language Policy, 16/3, 313-331.
Piller, I. & Cho, J. H. (2013). Neoliberalism as language policy. Language in Society 42, 23-44.
Rannut, M. (1994). Beyond linguistic policy: The Soviet Union versus Estonia. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas &
R. Phillipson (Eds.), Linguistic human rights: Overcoming linguistic discrimination (pp. 179–208).
Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
Rassool, N. (2007). Global issues in language, education and development. Perspectives from postcolonial
countries. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Roosevelt, T. (1919). Letter to R. K. Hurd, January 3. Retrieved August 10, 2011 from http://
urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_roosevelt_on_immigrants.htm
Rose, H. & J. B. Conama (2017). Linguistic imperialism: still a valid construct in relation to language
policy for Sign Language. Language policy, online from September 2017.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education—or worldwide diversity and human rights?
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Dunbar, R. (2010). Indigenous children’s education as linguistic genocide and a
crime against humanity? A global view. Guovdageaidnu/Kautokeino, Norway: Galdu, Resource Centre
for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & R. Phillipson (Eds.) (2017). Language Rights. London : Routledge.
Spring, J. (1996). The cultural transformation of a Native American family and its tribe 1763–1995.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tacitus (1948). Tacitus on Britain and Germany: A new translation of the Agricola and the Germania (H.
Mattingly, Trans.). West Drayton, England: Penguin.
Templer, B. (2016).The English Hydra as invader on the post-communist ‘new periphery’ in Bulgaria. In
Bunce et al., Eds., 129-141.
Wechsler, A. (2017). The International-School Surge. The Atlantic, June 5, 2017.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/06/the-international-school-surge/528792/
Suggested Readings
Dimova, S., Hultgren, A. K. & and Jensen, C. (Eds,) (2015). English-medium instruction in higher
education in Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Edge, J. (Ed.) (2006). (Re-)locating TESOL in an age of empire. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Harvey, D. (2005). The new imperialism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Macedo, D., Dendrinos, B., & Gounari, P. (2003). The hegemony of English. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Mazrui, A. A. (2004). English in Africa after the cold war. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Phillipson, R. (2003). English-only Europe? Challenging language policy. London: Routledge.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Phillipson, R. (2010). The global politics of language: Markets, maintenance,
marginalization or murder. In N. Coupland (Ed.), The handbook of language and globalization (pp. 77–
100). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.