Historical events such as the Pilgrims’ emigration to the Americas, the wholesale transportation of British convicts to Australia and the expansion of the British empire, initiated the spread of the English
language to territories which Britain claimed as itsown. However, it is only relatively recently, since the 1920’s (Kachru, 1994: 137), or the end of World War II (Kaplan, 1987: 138), that the influence of English as an international language (EIL) has extended to most other parts of the world. Indeed English is now so widespread and considered so influential that the ‘BANA’ countries (Britain and the Australasian and North American nations) (Holliday, 1994: 4), which use English as their first language, are often charged with hegemony (Kaplan, 1987: 139) and ‘linguistic imperialism’ (Phillipson, 1992).
I will provide functional definitions for some of the concepts central to this paper. Sections 3-5 then discuss the roles played by EIL and local languages in the development and maintenance of society and culture. These sections present the view that while EIL can positively develop both a society and its culture, social and cultural maintenance is best performed by the local language. Section 6 highlights the need for language planning which balances the use of EIL for development on the one hand, with the use of local languages for maintenance on the other. Finally, section 7 outlines some of the implications of these issues for English language teaching (ELT) professionals in Japan. It is necessary to concede at this point that this paper cannot possibly cover the full range of issues pertaining to the EIL debate. The field is simply too vast. Instead, I have tried to take a balanced selection of views on issues which help to illustrate the points I wish to make in response to the question. While definition of the key concepts is seen as a necessary precursor to any discussion of language, society and culture (Wardhaugh, 1998: 1), I will keep such clarifications to a necessary minimum. The definitions presented here therefore, though not necessarily conceptually water-tight, are straight-forward, clear and adequately functional for the purposes of this paper.
Any group of people who are drawn together for a certain purpose or purposes. In the context of English in an international setting, the ‘group’ might be loosely .Equated to ethnic, culturally homogenous populations, possibly within, but not necessarily limited to national boundaries. Here the ‘purposes’ are taken to be social and cultural maintenance and development. Whatever it is one has to know or believe in order to operate in a manner acceptable to a society’s members, and to do so in any role that they accept for any one of themselves. Though somewhat dated, this is in line with my own view as it emphasizes culture as the knowledge-base and value-system to which members of a society must subscribe if they are to be socially accepted. These knowledge and value sets are very often expressed
A society’s language and literature.
For this reason, in addition to being 'a resource for conceptualization and communication' (Widdowson, 1987: 17), ‘language’ might also be thought of as a cultural resource, often reflecting as it does the values of the society in which it has evolved (Hyde, 1994: 300). It seems that a language develops over time specifically so that a society can adequately express the values and beliefs that it holds. If EIL can be defined at all, it might be described as any of the Centre’s ‘received pronunciation’ (RP) varieties of English, used for international communication where the interlocutors do not have a common first language However, both Kaplan (1987: 145) and Wardhaugh (1998: 28) point out and differ among themselves. Development' might be defined simply as change or evolution. The implicit assumption is that the change is intended to benefit all members of the society, though this will not always be the case. The term ‘maintenance’ indicates the continuance of the society or culture in its current state.
Finally, a common distinction made when discussing EIL is that between the native English-speaking ‘Centre’ countries, predominantly Holliday’s (1994: 4) BANA nations, and the non-native English-speaking ‘Periphery’. I will follow this distinction rather than Kachru’s differentiation between ‘Inner’,‘Outer’ and ‘Expanding circles’, for two reasons. Firstly, that it better reflects the powerrelations between these two groups (Bisong, 1995: 122) and secondly, as Shaub (2000: 225) points out in the case of Egypt, Kachru’s distinction between Outer and Expanding nations is not always applicable.
Language development in modernization societies
One of the main roles EIL plays in social development is in modernizations. Copious literature exists pointing out that English is the language of science and technology (Strevens, 1980: 62; 1992: 31; Kachru, 1990: 7; Seaton, 1997: 381; Hyrkstedt and Kalaja, 1998: 345; Master, 1998: 716; Kennedy, 2001: 83). Indeed, Kaplan notes that 80-85% of the world’s scientific and technical information is available in English (1987: 139, citing McArthur, 1987). Two reasons for this phenomenon are that, firstly, English has repeatedly found itself in the right place at the right time' (Crystal, 1997: 110). In other words, it has generally been the Centre which has developed new technologies. Unsurprisingly, the associated terminology is in English. Secondly, English seems capable of supporting a very wide range of functions (Kachru, 1994: 135).The Periphery is therefore often required to use English to obtain and use these technologies when developing or modernizing their services, industries and infrastructures. Indeed, Kaplan points out that. where industrialization and modernization have been chosen the relative achievement of those objectives is significantly tied to the availability of English because, for better or for worse, English is the language of science and technology. In other words, he views access to English as a concomitant factor for successful modernizations. Concerns however have been expressed that the process of modernizations affords. the Centre opportunities to exploit and/or control Periphery societies.
English formerly to colonized countries has not paved the way to modernity and prosperity, as was foreseen by at least some planners in the post World War II era Far from being a neutral medium allowing for international. Communication and access to the technology of developed countries, English has served the political, cultural, and economic interests of the principal colonial powers, Great Britain and the U.S., at the expense of local and national development in third world countries. Though English may be a necessary, concomitant factor in modernizations, it should not be viewed as a sufficient one. How can any language, on its own, assure a society’s development ? English, or any other language, is no substitute for a viable, coherent plan for modernizations, supported by sufficient funding and appropriate and adequate political and economic policies, implemented by a competent government. It is unreasonable therefore to hold English as a language, or the Centre as its perceived’ owners’ responsible for the failure of former colonies to develop, particularly when the prevailing social, economic and political contexts in places like India and Africa are far more influential and potentially detrimental to development. Of course the Centre gains from selling its technology to the Periphery. That is the nature of capitalism. Were the roles to be reversed, it is most likely that the Periphery would do the same.
The literature also notes that the Periphery uses EIL in various domains relating to leisure and work, for example in the international news and entertainment media and in youth culture (Strevens, 1980: 62; 1992: 31; Kachru, 1994: 140), for the internet (Seaton, 1997: 381; Bowers 2001: 293) and for (particularly international) business and trade (Kaplan, 1987: 143; Hyrkstedt and Kalaja, 1998: 345; Master, 1998: 716; Bowers, 2001: 293). It could be inferred from this that proficiency in English therefore enhances one’s leisure and career choices and opportunities. Various sources support this inference. Personal experience shows that it is certainly one of the main reasons given to Japanese students of English by their teachers for studying the subject at school. But what was apparent in South Africa was that lots of people, anxious to make life better, didn’t want, as they saw it, to ‘waste time’ learning their own language. They were actually saying ‘I want to learn English, because English is the language that’s really going to better my life, and the life of my children. This raises the larger issue of the effects EIL has upon local languages.
How does enhancing leisure and career opportunities help a society’s development ? Wider leisure opportunities might generate income for, and even create new jobs in both public- and private-sector leisure-related industries. Wider career opportunities and choice can help bring about higher levels of employment. The net result is a more prosperous economy. This view is supported by Al-Haq and Smadi (1996: 313)who demonstrated that Saudi university students believe that English can enhance their nation’s economical development. Strong critics of EIL, its spread, influences and effects, do not appear to contest that English can enhance leisure and career opportunities in Periphery societies, nor that, where such occurs, it might be beneficial to the local economy. What mainly concerns them, as touched upon above, is the potentially adverse effects that EIL might have on society’s indigenous culture in the process.
Language in the development of culture in this era
Unsurprisingly perhaps, there seems little controversy attached to the use of EIL for improving the physical services and infrastructures necessary for a large, well equipped society, or for improving peoples’ quality of life through work and leisure. However, the debate concerning the effects that EIL and its use have had on local cultures is far more active. I shall discuss this with respect to the impact EIL has had on indigenous value- systems, languages and literary arts. l have noted that English, even when used in an international context, is not the value-neutral language that Ward haughty (1987: 15) (Appendix) claims it to be; Brown, 1990: 13; and Phillip son, 1992, cited by Bisong, 1995: 123). My response to this is that of course English has a set of attendant values. That is its purpose as a language, as defined in section 2. However, those opposed to the spread and influence of EIL often make the generalized assumption that exposure to English results in the corruption or complete displacement of the local value-system which constitutes a major part of the indigenous culture.
References
Adaskou, K. et al (1990) ‘Design decisions on the cultural content of a secondary English
course for Morocco.’ ELT Journal 44/1: 3-10.
Bisong, J. (1995) ‘Language choice and cultural imperialism: a Nigerian perspective.’
ELT
Journal 49/2: 122-132.
Bowers, R. (2001) ‘Rights, responsibilities, and English - an interview with Helena
Kennedy’. ELT Journal 55/3: 289-295.
Brown, G. (1990) ‘Cultural values: the interpretation of discourse.’ ELT Journal 44/1:
11-17.
Crystal, D. (1997) English as a Global Language. CUP.
Crystal, D. (1998) ‘Talking shop: Roger Bowers in conversation with David Crystal.’
ELT
Journal 52/2: 146-153.
Dushku, S. (1998) ‘English in Albania: Contact and convergence.’ World Englishes 17/3:
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|