Journal of

10.1177/0196859904270001
English in Communication
Switzerland Inquiry

Christof Demont-Heinrich

Language and National Identity

in the Era of Globalization:
The Case of English in Switzerland

This article engages the intersection of language, national identity, nation state,
English and discourses of (global) modernization, progress, and the transcen-
dence of the national vis-à-vis an instructive case: Switzerland. It examines
the rise of English in multilingual Switzerland and its potential impact on Swiss
collective (national) identity. It reflects, as well, on the ways in which Eng-
lish’s spread might influence the ethic of multilingual reciprocity in the Swiss
and global contexts. It is contended that despite significant shortcomings,
multilingualism has survived and, to a large extent, even thrived in Switzerland
precisely because that nation state has legally and normatively codified the
protection of linguistic particularism and established multilingualism as a
basic component of its national identity. Yet even state-sanctioned and officially
codified multilingualisms deeply embedded in national mythology, such as in
Switzerland, are potentially threatened by an incessant drive to modernize,
globalize, and “Englishize.”

Keywords: globalization; identity; language; English

This article takes up important strands of an ongoing intra- and interdisciplin-

ary discussion about the complex “national-global intersections and dialecti-
cal processes” (Gavrilos, 2003, p. 336) that characterize contemporary global-
ization.1 It does so by critically engaging the intersection of language, national
identity, nation state, English2 and discourses of (global) modernization, prog-
ress, and the transcendence of the national vis-à-vis a deeply instructive con-
text: Switzerland. Drawing from Blommaert (1999) and Fairclough (2001), I
use ideological critique to analyze a variety of scholarly and public discourses,
grounding my analysis in the Swiss case. My specific concern is with raising a
set of interesting and important questions about the complex interplay
between linguistic diversity, multilingualism, collective identity, the national
and transnational, and English. More broadly, I aim to bring diverse discourses

Journal of Communication Inquiry 29:1 (January 2005): 66-84

DOI: 10.1177/0196859904270001
© 2005 Sage Publications
66
 English in Switzerland 67

from a wide array of thinkers and disciplines into dialogue with one another in
new and thought-provoking ways.
Switzerland provides an interesting case study for the global spread of Eng-
lish and its potential effect on national and global identity for a number of
reasons:

1. It is an officially multilingual state.

2. Its official multilingual status is viewed by many Swiss and non-Swiss as central to its
national identity.
3. English is not one of its four national languages.
4. It is not a former American or British colony.
5. The status of English in Switzerland is the subject of increasingly heated internal
debate.
6. It can be seen as a microcosm of the spread of English globally.
7. It problematizes views of the global spread of English as essentially benign.

A close analysis of the intersection of language, identity, globalization and

discourses on progress, modernity, and transcendence of the nation state are of
considerable relevance to many of the larger questions with which interna-
tional communication and cultural studies are concerned. Most notably, what
is the relation between local, national, regional, and global forms and manifes-
tations of communication, power, culture, and the global? Bhabha (1994),
Giddens (1990), Hall (1995), Harvey (1990), Kraidy (1999), Ong (1999), and
Tomlinson (1999) are among those who have, from a variety of angles, per-
spectives, and disciplines, addressed such questions.

The Nation, Nationalism,

Nation State, and Language
A contemporary hegemonic association of linguistic homogeneity with
nation is often traced to Johann Gottfried Herder’s seminal essay “On the Ori-
gins of Language.” In it, the 18th century German philosopher lays out the
influential premise that language and national consciousness are inseparable.
Much 20th century scholarship on the nation, nationalism, and nation state has
sought to distance itself from Herder. Weber (1994) has declared that nation
is not identical to a particular community of language speakers. Hobsbawm
(1996) underscores the fact that most (nation) states are linguistically diverse
and that all human beings are multidimensional. And Kedourie (1994) asserts
that “there can be no clear convincing reason why people who speak the same
language, but whose history and circumstances otherwise widely diverge,
should form one state, or why people who speak two different languages and
whom circumstances have thrown together should not form one state” (p. 53).
Finally, Barbour (2000b) declares that “there is no need for all citizens of a
68 Journal of Communication Inquiry

nation to be native speakers of a single language, and absolutely no need for a

nation’s language to be clearly distinct from others” (p. 14).
Barbour (2000b), as do Hobsbawm (1996) and others, ultimately takes the
politically correct position of defending linguistic diversity. Yet he, like others
whose work I examine more closely below, fails to offer a structural frame-
work whereby such diversity might be maintained. In the end, Barbour
(2000b) makes what I call the modernization move. This move cloaks the ideo-
logical dimensions of discourses that espouse universal progress and the tran-
scendence of the national.3 For instance, in citing examples of British and
French (linguistic colonialism), Barbour (2000b) notes that these states were
seen “as models of political and economic development, and their (perceived)
monolingual nature was seen as essential to this, a quite plausible [italics
added] assumption since a shared first language can facilitate economic and
political cooperation between citizens” (pp. 14-15). By inserting the word,
plausible, Barbour (2000b) seemingly positions (perceived) national
monolingualism as, in fact, facilitating development. Such an argument does
seem plausible, so much so that what Skutnabb-Kangas (1996) has called
monolingual reductionism has come to be viewed both inside and outside of
the academy as somehow essential to human progress. So far, Switzerland, one
of the richest and progressive nation states in the world, has defied the mono-
lingualism equals progress formula.
Hobsbawm (1996) makes a similar modernization move in an essay enti-
tled, “Language, Culture and National Identity.” Among other things, he im-
plicitly criticizes the European Union for spending one third of its budget
translating materials into 11 official languages. He then casts the dominant
global position of English as a simple fact of life. So, for example, if you are an
Estonian molecular biologist, the practical matter of it is if you want to be read
outside Estonia, you must write in English. Both Barbour (2000b) and
Hobsbawm (1996) potentially mask the way in which the global spread of
English can affect and perhaps even undermine (collective) national identity,
linguistic diversity, and multilingual reciprocity, sacrificing the latter on the
altar of inevitable and progressive linguistic universality. “It would be realistic
to give all university education in certain subjects in English today,” writes
Hobsbawm, “as is partly done in countries like the Netherlands and Finland
which once were the pioneers of turning local vernaculars into all-purpose lan-
guages. There is no other way [italics added].” Hobsbawm concludes that lan-
guage must be officially separated from the (nation) state or it will remain a
constant source of conflict. Yet he, like Barbour (2000b), fails to establish how
linguistic diversity, protected by the nation state in Switzerland, would or
could be effectively preserved outside the bounds of the nation state.
By invoking the modernization move, Barbour (2000b) and Hobsbawm
(1996) might be said to be following in the footsteps of Gellner (1983, 1994).
 English in Switzerland 69

Gellner (1994) does not appear to have much of a soft spot for language. He
asserts, “Changing one’s language is not the heart-breaking or soul-destroying
business it is claimed to be in romantic nationalist literature,” (p. 60). In
Nations and Nationalism, Gellner (1983) contends at one point that language
is “easy to shed” (p. 66). And, whereas, on the one hand, he seemingly invokes
a critical tone, writing that “nationalism insists upon homogeneity,” if a certain
kind of transnational(ist) global homogeneity were to take root in the form of a
universalizing cosmopolitanism, Gellner (1983), it would seem, might well
cheer such a development. “It would not,” he maintains, “in principle be im-
possible to have a single . . . cultural/educational goldfish bowl for the entire
globe, sustained by a single political authority and a single educational system.
In the long run, this may yet come to pass” (p. 52).
What Barbour’s (2000b), Gellner’s (1983, 1994), and Hobsbawm’s (1996)
critiques of nationalism and national forms of sociopolitical organization lack
is sufficient attention to historical, material, and ideological continuity, specif-
ically vis-à-vis the question of monolingualism in power domains, such as
education. A key question is: Are those, such as Barbour (200b), Hobsbawm
(1996), and Gellner (1983, 1994), who either explicitly or implicitly advocate
transcendence of the national in favor of a transnational order, are, in fact, par-
tially premising such an order on precisely the sort of (linguistic) homogeneity
that they criticize within the context of the nation (state)? Nor do they pay suf-
ficient heed to the potential for social practices, linguistic and otherwise, in
upper level domains of a (global) social order to affect those in lower levels.
They posit a neat, analytical bifurcation among levels and not a complex dia-
lectal relation, which involves one level inevitably affecting another. In fact,
what might appear to be at first glance a progressive and unifying develop-
ment—the emergence of a single global language—is not automatically so at
different levels of the social order and in diverse linguistic and cultural con-
texts. Its impact depends on the interplay of sociolinguistic forces in a given
(national) context, as I will argue that the case of Switzerland illustrates.

Discourses on the Historical Foundation

of Swiss National Identity
A federation of 26 cantons and half cantons and 7.2 million people with four
national languages—German, French, Italian, and Romansch—Switzerland
is typically conceived of as an anomaly in the literature on nation, nationalism,
and the nation state. It is labeled a special case, viewed as a loose federation
without a true national identity and, for the most part, ignored. Thus, for ex-
ample, Switzerland, whose historic and contemporary multilingual status
would seem to pose a particular problem for Anderson’s (1990) theory of the
relatively linguistically homogenous nation, is largely written off by him as a
70 Journal of Communication Inquiry

“backward,” “conservative” country (p. 139). It achieves modern nation-state

status in his estimation only after an (electronic) communications revolution,
which renders linguistic homogeneity as a nation-forming catalyst superflu-
ous. In contrast to Anderson, other scholars attribute Switzerland’s historic
and contemporary nation-state status, at least in part precisely to its long-
running linguistic, cultural, and geographic particularisms. “ ‘Swissness,’ ”
writes Steinberg (1996), “has been historically rooted in the particularism of
self. To be Swiss was to be part of a specific community” (p. 154). A certain
contradiction can be seen to be at the heart of the emergence of a particular—
some have argued, peculiar—Swiss national identity: Difference with their
regional neighbors is what the Swiss had in common. The notion of so-called
cross-cutting cleavages, as a possible explanation for the Swiss case, is
invoked in much of the literature on Swiss nationalism and national identity.
According to this theory, Switzerland’s more than 700-year existence as first
an extremely loose confederation and, after 1848, as an officially and legally
codified modern nation state can largely be explained by way of crucial intra-
cantonal differences and intercantonal commonalties.
Schmid (1981) and Steinberg (1996) agree that while useful in explaining
the Swiss case, the notion of cross-cutting cleavages cannot entirely account
for the emergence of a modern nation state around sometimes deep differ-
ences. Other crucial factors in the coalescence of a Swiss national state in-
clude: its historic protection of multilingualism, a historic commitment to
political accommodation and power sharing; its astonishing contemporary per
capita wealth; its specialized economy (banking, watches, chocolate, etc.); its
geographic location and topography, the instrumental interest that outside
countries such as France and Germany had in its neutrality; external pressures
and threats, most notably World War II; its unique system of military service
and conscription for all Swiss citizens; and its relatively small size (Bendix,
1994; Billigmeier, 1979; Cotti, 1992-1993; Dürmüller, 2001; Mitra, 2001;
Schmid, 1981; Steinberg, 1996).
Despite its commitment to official linguistic diversity, a significant amount
of intra-Swiss tension has historically centered around questions of language.
Yet such tension has never been intense enough to tear the nation state apart. In
fact, multiple scholars maintain that Switzerland’s delicate linguistic balanc-
ing act has played a central role in the contemporary Swiss sense of national
identity. Stevenson (1990) suggests that “pluralism is an essential constituent
of the Swiss self-image” (p. 234). Steinberg (1996) asserts, “Language defines
and at the same time denies Swiss identity; it reinforces the peculiarities of
political practice and reflects them” (p. 130). And, more recently, Murray and
Dingwall (2001) have contended that the spread of English in Switzerland
“strikes at the heart of Swiss national identity” (p. 89).
 English in Switzerland 71

One need not cast one’s empirical net far to find confirmation of the propo-
sition that questions of language go to the heart of collectively imagined Swiss
identity and that, furthermore, the rise of English in Switzerland is viewed as
standing in an uneasy relationship to multilingual Switzerland. Swiss politi-
cal, and larger public discourses, frequently invoke multilingualism and multi-
culturalism. For example, in a personal polemic in which he proposes a “Ten
Commandments of Multilingualism in Switzerland,” Swiss politician Flavio
Cotti (1992-1993) contends that “the originality of Switzerland lies in its cul-
tural and linguistic diversity” (p. 63). Similar appeals to a multicultural and
multilingual ethic can be seen in official government documents available to
the Swiss, and the world, on the Internet. The first paragraph of a section of
“The Swiss Confederation: A Brief Guide 2003,” with a subheading, “The
Political Structure of Switzerland” published on The Federal Authorities of
the Swiss Confederation (2003) Web site, opens with an explicit appeal to
multiculturalism and multilingualism: “Switzerland is a multi-ethnic, multi-
lingual and multi-confessional nation shaped by the will of its people.” The
web site for the Swiss Embassy in Washington, D.C. contains multiple ref-
erences to Swiss multiculturalism and multilingualism. For example, it is
asserted that “while clichés of yodeling mountaineers, blond and blue-eyed
Heidi, cheese- and chocolate-making, bankers of the famous Zürcher
Bahnhofstrasse die hard, this small country can offer a surprisingly different
picture thanks to its great cultural diversity” (“Embassy of Switzerland in
Washington, D.C.,” n.d.).
The centrality of multilingualism and multiculturalism to a larger collec-
tively imagined Swiss community can be seen, as well, in the emphasis placed
on these ideals by Swiss tourist and commerce organizations. A web page enti-
tled, “The Swiss: A Multilingual People,” published at Switzerland.isyours.
com, a Web site aimed at encouraging “foreign clients to move to Switzerland,
personally or financially,” uses Swiss linguistic diversity, and English, as sell-
ing points to prospective expatriates or investors:

The Swiss come with three languages as standard equipment: their mother
tongue (i.e., Swiss, German, Italian or French), another national language that is
not their mother tongue and English . . .Good news for speakers of English . . .the
Swiss are so fond of English that many advertisements are in English, which has
the double advantage of being hip and of avoiding the need to translate every-
thing three times. (Michaleoud & Co., n.d.)

Discourse published at the Web site for Swissworld.org (n.d.), an online

“publication of Presence Switzerland (PRS), an official body of the Swiss
Confederation promoting the worldwide dissemination of general knowledge
about Switzerland,” strikes a more ambivalent tone. For example, on a page
with the title, “Language Distribution: The Four National Languages,” it is
72 Journal of Communication Inquiry

noted that, “Proficiency in the national languages is decreasing in favour of

English. Quadrilingual Switzerland is apparently becoming a two-and-a-half-
language Switzerland. Many people speak their mother tongue and English
and understand a second national language” (Swissworld.org, n.d.).
A textual analysis of more than 2 dozen articles, opinion pieces, and letters
to the editor drawn from five sources4 revealed the prominence of questions of
language vis-à-vis local and national, as well as individual and collective
Swiss identity and cohesion. The notion of multilingualism and multicul-
turalism as central to internally and externally constructed Swissness (idée
Suisse”) was a prominent theme. So, too, was a perceived gap between the
ideal of multilingual Switzerland and actual sociolinguistic and cultural prac-
tice. Finally, the texts analyzed engaged multiple questions, problems and
opportunities inspired in large part by the rise of English within Switzerland.
To better understand the potential implications of the emergence of a two-and-
a-half-language Switzerland, I now move to an overview of language politics
and demographics in this instructive, microcosmic linguistic, and cultural
context.

Multilingual Switzerland:
Myth, Reality, or Both?
Switzerland is, in fact, a multilingual country, at least insofar as it has desig-
nated multiple official languages. Four languages—French, German, Italian,
and Romansch—are legally codified national languages. Three—French,
German, and Italian—are official languages, meaning that all federal govern-
ment documents must be made available in those three languages. In the 2000
Swiss census, 63.9% of respondents named German, 19.5% listed French,
6.6% claimed Italian, and 0.5% named Romansch as their first language.
Another 9.5% of people in Switzerland listed a foreign language, including
English (1%) as their first language (Swiss Federal Statistical Office, 2002).
French is the language spoken by the majority of residents in 6 of 26 Swiss
cantons and half cantons. Italian and Romansch are majority languages in one
canton, respectively. German is the first language of the majority of speakers in
the remaining cantons and half cantons. To complicate matters, German
speakers in Switzerland speak a variety of versions of Schywzertutsch, a Ger-
man dialect that can sometimes be virtually unintelligible to many other
speakers of German. So-called Hochdeutsch, or high German, is used as a
written language; it is frequently referred to in Switzerland as “Schrift-
deutsch.” At the federal government level, proportional linguistic representa-
tion is the norm. For example, the seven-member Federal Council of Minis-
ters, the highest branch of the federal government typically consists of four
German-speaking members, two French-speakers, and one Italian-speaker.
 English in Switzerland 73

French, German, and Italian all received constitutional guarantee as equal lan-
guages in the 1848 Swiss Constitution. Romansch was afforded the same sta-
tus in 1938. However, on a practical everyday level, both inside and outside of
the Swiss federal government, native speakers of Italian and Romansch often
find themselves having to speak French or German to function. “It is,” writes
Bern University linguist Urs Dürmüller (2001), “a matter of the smaller and
the weaker having to adapt to the stronger and the larger” (p. 67).
At the state level, Switzerland is indeed a multilingual country. Yet
Dürmüller (2001) has documented that a majority of its citizens, with the ex-
ception of the speakers of what some have called the “small” languages of Ital-
ian and Romansch, are in fact largely monolingual. “The average Swiss does
not have access to the language repertoire of the country,” writes Dürmüller,
who, along with other Swiss-based linguists, has conducted surveys and quan-
titative studies that underscore this fact. “Often he or she does not even know a
second language well enough to talk to a neighbour from a different language
group” (p. 66). Swiss everyday linguistic reality, then, might be said to be char-
acterized by a peculiar contradiction: the undeniable multilingual nature of the
country—viewed by both insiders and outsiders as central to Swiss identity, on
the one hand, and comparatively few highly fluent multilingual speakers, on
the other. Ultimately, the collective myth of the multilingual Swiss runs deep.
It engenders two somewhat paradoxical responses to the spread of English in
contemporary Switzerland. One interpretation holds that it is a largely positive
development that could enhance Swiss intracultural communication and
Swiss multilingual identity. The other sees it as generally a negative trend, one
which could potentially undermine Swiss national identity and even the nation
state itself. It is not surprising that the rise of English in Switzerland gets cast in
terms of a promise-threat dichotomy. This response mirrors the often
dichotomous interpretations of the contemporary rise of English on a global
scale.

Discourses on the Global Rise of English

It is problematic to reduce the whole of what amounts to a vast and growing
literature on the global position of English to two discursive poles. On utilitar-
ian grounds, I do so nonetheless. At one end are those who claim that its rise—
increasingly well documented by academics in a range of disciplines, includ-
ing sociolinguistics, anthropology, cultural studies, and language studies—
comprises an essentially progressive phenomenon (Conrad, 1996; Crystal,
1997; Fishman, 1996; Hobsbawm, 1996). At the other end of the discur-
sive spectrum (Pennycook, 1998; Phillipson, 1997; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000;
Tsuda, 1997), the rise of English is typically conceived of in terms of imperial-
ism and linguistic domination. Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas (1997) pro-
74 Journal of Communication Inquiry

vide a good example of this position. The global domination of English is, in
their estimation, largely the historical and ongoing result of linguistic imperi-
alism. According to this view, the historical military conquest of the world by
English speaking countries such, as the United States and the United King-
dom, continues today by way of global economic, technological, political, and
cultural domination. More concretely, it also continues to expand by way of a
deliberate, though not necessarily always well-planned, or organized, global
English education project.
Much discourse on the global position of English falls somewhere in be-
tween (Ahmad, 1992; De Swaan, 2001; Holborow, 1999; Viswanathan, 1989)
the opposing discursive poles I have established here. What unites virtually all
of the literature on what I call the global hegemony of English5 is an acknowl-
edgement that English has become deeply caught up in particular notions of
progress and modernization (Ahmad, 1992; Crystal, 1997; Fishman, 1996;
Pennycook, 1998; Phillipson, 1997; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). Among the
characteristics that Gellner and others have typically associated with moder-
nity and modern nation states, especially germane to a discussion of the global
hegemony of English, are efficiency, standardization, effective communica-
tion, and the exchange and facilitation of knowledge. English in Switzerland
provides a revealing case whereby to examine and engage opposing discursive
positions on the global rise of English.

English in Multilingual Switzerland

Like many countries in the world, Switzerland has seen an increasing pene-
tration of English into multiple spheres of social life. English has long since
been used by Swiss banking and financial elites in international business cen-
ters such as Zürich. Nor is it unusual to see or hear English in various realms
of consumer and pop culture, including advertising music, film, and the mass
media (Cheshire & Moser, 1994; Coray, 2001; Dürmüller, 2001). As else-
where, English is coming to play an increasingly significant role in Swiss aca-
demic life. According to Murray and Dingwall (2001), 63% of project and
grant proposals to the Swiss National Science Foundation in 1995 were writ-
ten in English, and 90% of required graduate course literature in the natural
sciences at the University of Bern was in English. Switzerland made English
the fourth language printed on its citizens’ passports in 1986 (Cheshire &
Moser, 1994). And, according to Cheshire and Moser (1994), English is also
used as the main language on the official timetable of the Swiss Federal Rail-
way. More evidence of the inroads English is making in multiple sectors of
Swiss life comes in the form of a decision by the Swiss federal government to
open an official English translation unit in August of 2002 (“English Becomes
Fourth Language of Government,” 2002).
 English in Switzerland 75

Others note that many Swiss businesses use English for some external and
internal correspondence in part because it is cheaper to pay for multiple trans-
lations (Fleck, 2002). According to Dürmüller (2001) and Geering (2001), it is
not uncommon for Swiss who hail from different language communities to use
English as a means of intra-Swiss communication. The basic economic, tem-
poral, and linguistic utility that seemingly underlies Swiss decisions to use
English is readily apparent, for example, in the following observation by Fleck
(2002), a Swiss journalist for the newspaper Le Temps:

I often speak English with Swiss Germans, both in my private and professional
life. Many Swiss French and Swiss German speakers communicate in Eng-
lish . . .with English, you have a means of speaking to a maximum number of
people—Swiss and foreigners.

Such statements would seem to bolster the claim by Dürmüller (2001) that,
“the attraction of English lies largely in the economic benefits that come with it
and in the fact that good or even fair knowledge of English offers access to the
US-dominated Western cultural community” (p. 71). And they seem to under-
score the contention by Lüdi (1996) that Switzerland might prove a fruitful
language laboratory where “social researchers will be able to study how the
‘market’ regulates (linguistic) matters” (p. 132). In fact, Grin (2001) has con-
ducted quantitative research in an attempt to determine whether knowledge of
English correlates with improved life chances in Switzerland. “English lan-
guage skills are associated with significant earnings gains on the Swiss labour
market. Controlling for education and experience, these differences clearly
rise along with the level of competence in English” (p. 73), he concludes. The
link between English and socioeconomic success is clear to many Swiss. A
poll aimed at establishing the extent of the spread of English in Switzerland
conducted in March 2002 found that 53% of German-speaking Swiss claimed
that they could speak English and 52% of French-speaking Swiss did. How-
ever, only 18% described their English capabilities as very good (“Studie über
den Sprachengebrauch,” 2002).
It would be tremendously misleading to say that Switzerland is awash in
English or that English threatens to replace any of its four national languages
as a primary means of communication among Swiss who hail from the same
language community. Yet its increasing presence is an undeniable fact of
Swiss life. Indeed, there is growing debate about English in Switzerland.
Debate has been, perhaps, most intense with respect to the rise of English in the
sphere of primary and secondary public education, where a decision, by for-
mer Zürich Director of Education Ernst Buschor two years ago, to designate
English rather than French, the so-called L2 (first foreign language taught),
set off a national furor. Eight additional cantons with a majority of German
76 Journal of Communication Inquiry

mother-tongue speakers quickly indicated that they planned to follow Zürich’s

lead. French, a national language, was suddenly threatened with being rele-
gated to L3 (a third foreign language) status in much of Switzerland. At the
time it was announced, the proposal by Zürich to privilege English inspired
some French-speaking politicians to draft a federal initiative that would force
Swiss cantons to designate one of the country’s four national languages as the
first foreign language to be taught in all cantonal school systems. In response
to the controversy stemming from his decision to designate English as L2 and
French as L3, Buschor said that “national cohesion is based on the values of
federalism and direct democracy and not on this kind of decision” (Bierling,
2002, para. 3). Others have strongly disagreed with Buschor. Charles Beer,
Geneva’s Director of Education, writing in response to the ongoing language
education debate in a January 16, 2004 edition of Le Temps, asserted that Eng-
lish, as a culturally indifferent and purely instrumental language in the Swiss
context, could not fulfill the crucial cultural functions that Switzerland’s
national languages could (Baschera, 2004).
The Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education (Schweizerische
Konferenz der Kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren; EDK), a confederation of
Swiss educational administrators, from throughout that nation state, recently
sought to put the furor to rest. In the spring of 2004, the EDK voted over-
whelmingly to recommend that all Swiss cantons introduce two languages at
the elementary school level (between school years 3 and 5). According to the
EDK mandate, which is binding and must be implemented no later than 2012,
one of these languages must be a Swiss national language. Each canton or half
canton can decide for itself when to introduce each of the mandatory two lan-
guages. However, by the 9th school year, students are expected to be equally
proficient in both languages (Cortesi, 2004). Whether the EDK decision will
actually end debate about the place of English in Switzerland and, in par-
ticular, Swiss education is questionable. In Zürich and two other cantons with
majorities of German mother-tongue speakers, efforts are now underway to
put before cantonal voters ballot initiatives that would challenge the EDK
mandates and require just one foreign language to be taught, ideally English, at
the primary school level. The teaching of another Swiss national language
would not occur until the secondary level, precisely the approach Buschor had
been pushing for in Zürich.
Can the language repertoire of Switzerland be adequately transferred to its
population if English replaces other national languages as L2? Does it matter if
English supplants French as L2 in majority German-speaking Swiss cantons if
few Swiss can effectively speak a language other than their mother tongue any-
way? Do the Swiss need some sort of minimal exposure to each other’s lan-
guages to maintain a collective sense of national identity? Or can such a sense
of national identity be maintained with English acting as Swiss intranational
 English in Switzerland 77

lingua franca? These are difficult questions, questions which inevitably pro-
voke larger ones: If one accepts the principle that linguistic diversity in Swit-
zerland and elsewhere is worth protecting and fostering, what is the best way to
do this? In other words, what constitutes the most effective way to ensure mul-
tiple people’s right to linguistic self-expression, a right officially codified in
the UN Charter on Human Rights? Another especially crucial question is:
Must a language operate and be used in all spheres of social life, or can it and
its speakers get along just fine, as some scholars maintain, when its use is re-
stricted to only some social arenas? Carmichael (2000) states,

The postmodern vision of truly decentered centres and the supremacy of infor-
mation technology imply the use of different languages for different activities in
different circumstances: perhaps a regional language at home, the official lan-
guage of the state or English at work, English on the Internet. For this to work in
practice it will be necessary to end the attrition of the languages of smaller
groups. (p. 239)

I would suggest that Carmichael’s postmodern vision of a different language

for this, that, and the other sphere be treated with healthy skepticism, for it fails
to adequately acknowledge the central significance of the question of the lan-
guage(s) used within the educational domain.
Education, and, in particular, higher education operate as the primary hege-
monic gateway to local, national, regional, and global power. As Grin (2001)
has proven in the case in Switzerland, education constitutes a crucial means
whereby individuals ascend the socioeconomic ladder. In short, languages that
fail to substantially penetrate the hegemonic (higher) education barrier face
significant challenges indeed (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000; Phillipson, 1997;
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2003). As
my own, and others’ (Coray, 2001), textual analyses show, the rise of English
has inspired vigorous and renewed public debate about language in Switzer-
land. Much of this debate has centered on the key realm of public education.
There is, then, a substantial awareness in Switzerland of the significance of lin-
guistic space given, or not given, to a language within formal domains of
power. This awareness is not surprising. Despite significant challenges, multi-
lingualism has survived and, to a large extent, even thrived in Switzerland pre-
cisely because that nation state has legally and normatively codified the pro-
tection of linguistic particularism, within and outside of the educational
domain, and established multilingualism as a basic component of its national
mythology. In other words, Switzerland, despite significant actual shortcom-
ings that sometimes belie its mythical status as the world’s consummate multi-
lingual nation state, stands as profound testament to the possibility of an offi-
cially multilingual nation state. It attests, as well, to the crucial role a nation
state can play in promoting multilingualism and multilingual reciprocity. It is
78 Journal of Communication Inquiry

not alone in this respect, with India perhaps providing the other best known
example of an officially linguistically diverse nation-state.6 Most languages
cannot survive without significant structures of power, for example, the
nation-state, supporting them. Nor are they as likely to thrive if they are exclu-
sively (and safely) relegated to limited spheres of social life. This is particu-
larly true if the languages in question are spoken by relatively few people.
Finally, they are in serious trouble if they cannot transform themselves to fit
the ideological straightjacket of modernization theory. Even state-sanctioned
and officially codified multilingualisms deeply embedded in national mythol-
ogy, such as in Switzerland, are potentially threatened by an incessant drive to
modernize. As the controversial Zürich decision attests, English, the global
language of progress, could very well supplant some of Switzerland’s national
languages in potentially dramatic and far-reaching ways. The most significant
potential change would be if English was transformed into an intranational
lingua franca, whose use discouraged mutual linguistic reciprocity among
those who hail from Switzerland’s four national language communities.

Conclusion
It is, I think, instructive to conclude with a concrete case of Romansch in
Switzerland. Less than half a percentage of the Swiss population identifies
Romansch as its mother tongue. Despite formal legal protection, the number
of speakers of Romansch has been steadily declining for more than 70 years
(Dürmüller, 2001). Many linguists predict it will eventually become one of
hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of languages to die out in the coming
century.7 Intralinguistic diversity and reluctance on the part of some of its
speakers to support a standardized written form of Romansch are partly to
blame for its decline, according to Billigmeier (1979). The classic problem of
sheer numbers has also played a big role in its decline; Romansch-speaking
Swiss learn other Swiss languages, most notably German, because they must
do so to function in everyday life. However, few German-speaking Swiss
reciprocate because it is not practical for them to do so. This example might be
seen as a revealing intra-Swiss manifestation of the relationship between
Hobsbawm’s English and Estonian speakers: Estonians learn English because
they must. English speakers, including peoples for whom English is an L2,
Germans, for example, are unlikely to engage in direct linguistic reciprocity
with Estonians because it is impractical for them to do so.
According to Billigmeier (1979), the overriding factor in the decline in
Romansch has been a long-running drive toward modernization. Local and
regional Romansch culture, customs, and language, he asserts, tended to col-
lide “with what appear[ed] to be the necessary adjustment required for survival
in an industrialized, urbanized world” (p. 167). In addition, Billigmeier states,
 English in Switzerland 79

A widespread sense of futility attends the struggle of the Swiss and (Romansch
speaking) Bundners8 to secure the continuity of valued aspects of traditional
institutions and customs. There is a desperate, hopeless quality in the struggle to
prove that these can be utilized so as to serve the needs of present generations
and that the communal past is not already beyond recovery (p.167).

Alternatively put, particular cultures and languages must mold themselves to

fit the criteria of modernity or risk being thrown on the historical trash heap of
the traditional, useless, and hopelessly impractical. The logic of capitalist eco-
nomic efficiency and gain constitutes the most overarching of these criteria.
The pull of this logic is apparent in Switzerland where proponents of English
regularly associate it with progress, dynamism, and collective and individual
upward mobility, while also often framing the teaching and learning of Swiss
national languages as less economically rewarding and worthwhile (Coray,
2001, p. 179).
The case of Romansch in Switzerland serves as a powerful and sobering
metaphor for the future of bilingualism and multilingualism in that nation state
and the world over. Although it may be argued that Switzerland has never
really been multilingual, inasmuch as its citizens are at a material level largely
monolingual, its internal and external sense of national identity hinges heavily
on its paradoxically very real and mythical multilingual status. Even if one
fails to achieve a reasonable degree of fluency in another language, the attempt
to look at and experience the world by way of another person’s language,
whether they are a fellow Swiss or a fellow citizen of the world, creates an
essential degree of interhuman communication and understanding. Perhaps
more significantly, it produces an appreciation for just how much time and
effort the acquisition of another language demands. In short, it is important
that the Swiss invest a significant effort into learning at least one other lan-
guage spoken by their fellow Swiss. It is especially important in the Swiss con-
text because a particular configuration of multilingualism and intranational
linguistic exchange has been perceived as being central to its internal cohesion
and unity and has, thus, in fact, become central to it. The designation of Eng-
lish as L2 in multiple German-speaking Cantons potentially threatens that
internal cohesion. As has happened with Romansch, the Swiss commitment to
intranational multilingualism risks being cast onto the dustbin of impractical-
ity in favor of modernizing influences, in this case global English and a global
linguistic teleology framed as a utopian de-Babelization.
Much public and academic discourse on English in Switzerland reflects a
growing awareness of the tension between globalizing economic and social
forces, of which English is a part, and local and national collective identity pre-
mised on the sociocultural and political ideal of multilingual reciprocity. Thus,
for instance, in a guest column written for the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, writer
C. B. Lausanne (2004) entreats her fellow Swiss not to yield completely to
80 Journal of Communication Inquiry

the “triumphant English-language train,” and to continue to actively support

and invest in teaching and learning the Swiss national languages while also
acknowledging the importance of English to Swiss global competitiveness.
And Constantin Pitsch (2001), one of a dozen participants in an interdisciplin-
ary academic symposium that resulted in the publication of a book entitled,
Die fünfte Landessprache? Englisch in der Schweiz, asserts that English is not
a threat to the Swiss multilingual ideal and national community “as long as the
intention does not exist to introduce English as the vehicular (lingua franca) of
the country” (p. 158).9
My examination of contemporary Swiss media discourse further reveals the
salience of the potential impact of English to the Swiss. Several larger themes
emerged:

• the tension between larger global economic forces, framed as the primary impetus behind
the rise of English in Switzerland and Swiss multilingualism;
• English as a sort of unstoppable global linguistic juggernaut;
• Switzerland as being in the midst of a significant language debate with English as primary
catalyst for this debate;
• an ongoing tension over which language(s) to teach and when;
• language as a transparent vehicle for utilitarian communication versus language as cen-
tral to individual, cultural, and national identity; and
• English as a potential linguistic unifier versus English as potentially undermining Swiss
unity.

Drawing from Lomnitz (2001), one might usefully conceive of the inroads
English is making in Switzerland in terms of the notion of contact zones.
According to Lomnitz, contact zones are inter- and intranational arenas

integrated into a broader “region” of national identity production that includes a

zone of state institutions that define rights and obligations for citizens and pro-
duce images and narratives of nationality, and zones of local and class identity
production that are equally critical. (p. 130)

A global push toward modernization of precisely the kind, which I have argued
here, is the primary contemporary force behind the rise of English in already
modern but always modernizing Switzerland comprises an integral compo-
nent in the dynamic interplay between and among contact zones.

Contact zones frame relationships in which the logic of national development

clashes with the transnational logic of modernization, and they exist because the
production and consumption of commodities is a transnational process, because
people can cross national borders for work or recreation, and because there is
an international horizon of scientific and technological progress. Therefore,
contact zones are border areas between the logic of the nation-state and capital-
ist progress. (Lomnitz, 2001, p. 142)
 English in Switzerland 81

The Swiss, and the rest of the world, must beware of uncritically adopting
“the transnational logic of [linguistic] modernization” (Lomnitz, 2001, p. 42).
At an abstract, but fundamental level, the (re)production of such logic within,
and outside of, the (global) academy by those, such as Hobsbawm (1996),
Gellner (1983), Crystal (2001) and others, reflects, at best, a certain naivete
and, at worst, a reductive worldview that mistakes the transcendence of the
national and nation state for the apparent transcendence of hierarchy, power,
inequality, and hegemony. The question is not simply one of what is being
transcended from (the backwards nation state) but what is being transcended
into (the modern global order); who will (largely) shape the new transcenden-
tal global (linguistic) order? On whose hegemonic universal (linguistic)
grounds will it (mostly) be premised? And, most significantly, indeed, can
such a colossal human social order sustain the diverse forms of human lin-
guistic expression, which allow different and differently situated peoples
around the world to communicate diverse and often competing views of
human (global) social reality in multiple social and political contexts and in a
meaningful, (self) empowering, and self-satisfying fashion?

Endnotes
1. I define globalization as the set of social and political-economic interconnections that
characterize what Harvey (1990) has called the condition of postmodernity. These interconnec-
tions are characterized by unequal relations of power.
2. There is no such thing as English—if what is meant by this is a bounded, static language.
There exist multiple varieties of English. Yet some varieties and the social actors who (re)pro-
duce them are more powerfully situated within a particular, yet dynamic, global linguistic con-
figuration of power than others.
3. More utopian-leaning visions of a global democratic order gloss over the essential tension
of scale: The larger the number of people who comprise such an order, the more difficult it
becomes for individuals and particular local, national, and even regional collectivities to shape
the global political system.
4. The texts came from the following Swiss sources: the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, a German-
language daily newspaper with a circulation of 159,000; the Tages-Anzeiger, a German-
language daily newspaper with a circulation of 280,000; the Schweizer Depeschenagentur AG, a
Swiss-based wire service which provides news in German, French, and Italian; Associated
Press Worldstream (German language version); and Swissinfo.org, an online publication of
Swiss Radio International. They spanned a 2½-year period, from March 2002 to July 2004.
5. When I invoke the global hegemony of English, I refer to a situation in which English is
made to act by powerfully situated human social actors as a sociolinguistic gateway to global
power.
6. A total of 18 languages are officially recognized in India’s Eighth Schedule of the Consti-
tution (De Swaan, 2001, p. 61).
7. Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) warns that 90% of the world’s languages could be “killed” by
the beginning of the next century (p. ix).
8. Budners refers to inhabitants of the Swiss canton of Graubünden.
9. My translation: In Pitch, “Solang nicht die Absicht besteht, das Englische als Verkehrs-
sprache des Landes einzuführen” (p. 158).
82 Journal of Communication Inquiry

References
Ahmad, A. (1992). In theory: Classes, nations, literatures. London: Verso.
Anderson, B. (1990). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of national-
ism. London: Verso.
Barbour, S. (2000a). Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg: The total coincidence of
nations and speech communities? In S. Barbour & C. Carmichael (Eds.), Language and
nationalism in Europe (pp. 151-167). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Barbour, S. (2000b). Nationalism, language, Europe. In S. Barbour & C. Carmichael (Eds.),
Language and nationalism in Europe (pp. 1-17). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Baschera, M. (2004, January 22). Sprachlicher Anachronismus der Schweiz [The linguistic
anachronism of Switzerland]. Neue Zürcher Zeiting. Retrieved May 20, 2004, from Lexis-
Nexis database.
Bendix, J. (1994). Switzerland’s 700th anniversary: The politics of negotiating a cultural dis-
play. Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism, 21(1-2), 33-44.
Bhabha, K. (1994). The Location of culture. London: Routledge.
Bierling, Billi. (2002, November 3). English comes first in Eastern Switzerland. Swissinfo. Re-
trieved November 25, 2002, from http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=
105&sid=1424007
Billigmeier, R. H. (1979). A crisis in Swiss pluralism: The Romansch and their relations with the
German- and Italian-Swiss in the perspective of a millennium. The Hague, the Netherlands:
Mouton.
Blommaert, J. (1999). The debate is open. In J. Blommaert (Ed.), Language ideological debates
(pp. 1-38). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Carmichael, C. (2000). Conclusions: Language and national identity in Europe. In S. Barbour &
C. Carmichael (Eds.), Language and nationalism in Europe (pp. 280-289). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Cheshire, J., & Moser, L.-M. (1994). English as cultural symbol: The case of advertisements in
French-speaking Switzerland. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,
15(6), 451-469.
Conrad, A. W. (1996). The international role of English: The state of discussion. In J. A. Fish-
man, A. W. Conrad, A. Rubal-Lopez (Eds.), Post-imperial English: Status change in former
British and American colonies, 1940-1990 (pp. 13-36). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Coray, R. (2001). Englisch in der Schweiz: Trojanisches Pferd oder Sprungbrett für die
Zukunft? [English in Switzerland: Trojan horse or springboard for the future?]. In R. J. Watts
& H. Murray (Eds.), Die fünfte Landessprache? Englisch in der Schweiz (pp. 161-179).
Zürich, Switzerland: vdf Hochschulverlag AG.
Cortesi, A. (2004, April 1). Kantone einig im Sprachenstreit [Cantons unite in the language bat-
tle]. Tages-Anzeiger. Retrieved May 20, 2004, from the Lexis-Nexis database.
Cotti, F. (1992-1993). The roots of our identity. European Education, 24(4), 62-67.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
De Swaan, A. (2001). Words of the world. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Dürmüller, U. (2001). The presence of English at Swiss universities. In U. Ammon (Ed.), The
dominance of English as a language of science: Effects on other languages and language
communities (pp. 389-403). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Embassy of Switzerland in Washington, DC (n.d.). Culture and education: Introduction to
Swiss culture. Retrieved July 20, 2004, from http://www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/e/
home/culedu/cultur.html
 English in Switzerland 83

English becomes fourth language of government. (2002, March 9). Swissinfo. Retrieved
November 25, 2002, from http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=571&
sid=1056513
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power. Harlow, UK: Longman.
The Federal Authorities of the Swiss Confederation. (2003). The political structure of Switzer-
land. Retrieved July 21, 2004, from http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/bk/buku/buku2003/01.pdf
Fishman, J. (1996). Summary and interpretation: Post-imperial English 1940-1990. In J. A.
Fishman, A. W. Conrad, A. Rubal-Lopez. (Eds.), Post-imperial English: Status change in
former British and American colonies, 1940-1990 (pp. 623-641). New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Fleck, F. (2002, September 28). Anxieties are rising as English steals the show. The Financial
Times. Retrieved November 23, 2002, from Infotrac/Galegroup database.
Gavrilos, D. (2003). Communicating the ‘new patriotism’: What does it mean to be a citizen in a
global context? Journal of Communication Inquiry, 27(4), 333-336.
Geering, A. (2001). Foreword. In R.J. Watts & H. Murray (Eds.), Die fünfte Landessprache?
Englisch in der Schweiz (pp. 1-2). Zürich, Switzerland: vdf Hochschulverlag AG.
Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and nationalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Gellner, E. (1994). Nationalism and modernization. In J. Hutchinson & A. D. Smith (Eds.),
Nationalism (pp. 55-62). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Grin, F. (2001). English as economic value: Facts and fallacies. World Englishes, 20(1), 65-78.
Hall, S. (1995). New cultures for old. In D. Massey, & P. Jess. (Eds.), A place in the world?
Places, cultures and globalization (pp. 176-211). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Harvey, D. (1990). The condition of postmodernity. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Hobsbawm, E. (1996). Language, culture and national identity. Social Research, 63(4).
Retrieved March 25, 2002, from Infotrac/Galegroup database.
Holborow, M. (1999). The politics of English: A Marxist view of language. London: Sage.
Kedourie, E. (1994). Nationalism and self-determination. In J. Hutchinson & A. D. Smith
(Eds.), Nationalism (pp. 49-55). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kraidy, M. M. (1999). The global, the local, and the hybrid: A native ethnography of globaliza-
tion. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 16(1), 456-476.
Lausanne, C. B. (2004, April 20). ‘English First’ statt ‘idée suisse’? [English first instead of the
idea of Switzerland?]. Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Retrieved, July 20, 2004, from Lexis-Nexis
Academic database.
Lomnitz, C. (2001). Deep Mexico, silent Mexico: An anthropology of nationalism. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Lüdi, G. (1996). Multilingualism through migration: A comparison of internal and external
migrant communities in Switzerland. In M. Hellinger & U. Ammon (Eds.), Contrastive
Sociolinguistics (pp. 103-133). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Michaleoud & Co. (n.d.). Switzerland.isyours.com: Living and investing in Switzerland.
Retrieved July 22, 2004, from http://switzerland.isyours.com/e/swiss-business-guide/a-
multilingual-land.html
Mitra, S. K. (2001). Language and federalism: The multi-ethnic challenge. International Social
Science Journal, 53(1), 51-60.
Murray, H., & Dingwall, S. (2001). The dominance of English at European universities: Swit-
zerland and Sweden compared. In U. Ammon (Ed.), The dominance of English as a lan-
guage of science: Effects on other languages and language communities (pp. 85-112). New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ong, A. (1999). Flexible citizenship: The cultural logics of transnationality. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
84 Journal of Communication Inquiry

Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge.

Phillipson, R. (1997). Linguistic Imperialism (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, R., & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1997). Linguistic human rights and English in Europe.
World Englishes, 16(1), 27-43.
Pitsch, C. (2001). Wieviel Mehrsprachigkeit is zumutbar? [How much multilingual ability is
reasonable?]. In R. J. Watts & H. Murray (Eds.), Die fünfte Landessprache? Englisch in der
Schweiz (pp. 141-159). Zürich, Switzerland: vdf Hochschulverlag AG.
Schmid, C. L. (1981). Conflict and Consensus in Switzerland. Berkeley, CA: University of Cali-
fornia Press.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1996). Educational language choice—multilingual diversity or mono-
lingual reductionism. In M. Hellinger & U. Ammon (Eds.), Contrastive Sociolinguistics
(pp. 175-204). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education—or worldwide diversity and
human rights. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Steinberg, J. (1996). Why Switzerland? (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stevenson, P. (1990). Political culture and intergroup relations in plurilingual Switzerland.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 11(3), 227-255.
Studie über den Sprachengebrauch in der Schweiz: Englisch in der Deutsch- und Westschweiz
an zweiter Stelle [Study on language use in Switzerland: English in second place in western
and German (speaking) Switzerland]. (2002, March 19). Schweizerische Depeschenagentur
AG (SDA). Retrieved July 20, 2004, from Lexis-Nexis Academic database.
Swiss Federal Statistical Office. (2002, May 1). Languages. Retrieved November 25, 2002,
from http://www.statistik.admin.ch/stat_ch/ber16/eu1601.htm
Swissworld.org. (n.d.). Language distribution: The four national languages. Retrieved, July 20,
2004, from http://www.swissworld.org/eng/index.html?siteSect=601&sid=4059003&
rubricId=14010
Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tsuda, Y. (1997). Hegemony of English vs. ecology of language: Building equality in interna-
tional communication. In L. E. Smith & M. Forman (Eds.), World Englishes 2000 (pp. 21-
31). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2003, March 31). Language
vitality and endangerment: Intangible cultural heritage unit’s ad hoc expert group on en-
dangered languages. Retrieved September 7, 2004 from http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/
file_download.php/21b5446d3321dc495911144b59200105language_vitality_and_
endangerment.pdf
Viswanathan, G. (1989). Masks of conquest: Literary study and British rule in India. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Weber, M. (1994). The nation. In J. Hutchinson & A. D. Smith (Eds.), Nationalism (pp. 21-25).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Christof Demont-Heinrich is a doctoral candidate at the School of Journalism

and Mass Communication at the University of Colorado. His current research
interests include linguistic and cultural dimensions of globalization, transna-
tional and national identity, and the role of media discourse in the (re)produc-
tion of and resistance to hegemony.