Douglas Fleming University of Ottawa
Language is a key element in the construction of imagined communities (Anderson,1983). The French Revolution explicitly exported the Parisian dialect into the hinterland of the new modern state. Isabella used a standardized form of Castilian to unite Spain and support the new empire (Illich, 1980). Jones’ (d.1794) work on Sanskrit provided European languages with pedigrees that were used to establish a proto-evolutionary and radicalized hierarchy. Print was integral to this process: unified fields of exchange and communication; fixed hierarchical forms of language; and gave an air of antiquity and legitimacy to newly favored dialects.
teaching English was the most important aspect of British colonial education; designed to integrate the social and management structures of the empire (Pennycook, 1998). Examples: Hong Kong, Quebec, residential schools. This did not necessary mean that English was taught universally. In India, for example, local vernaculars were taught to the majority. However, an elite few were selected for English instruction at British universities for the express purpose of serving the empire’s managerial needs (Macaulay,1920). Much of this instruction which focused on a ‘fetishization’ of English literature and a denial of the legitimacy of local forms.
Has anything changed? The mystification of English persists today: exaltation of the literary canon; link often made between literature and European philosophy; perception that English is the natural language of technology; perception that English’s lexis and structure is more complete and logical; privileging of standard English.
English is now the most influential language in the world today (Weber, 1997): the most widely spoken second language; official status in more countries and agencies than any other; linked to technology; economic and military power of the U.S. and the U.K. This has had concrete effects. Jan Egeland, UN Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, recently criticized the fact that English-based relief projects in Africa are consistently better funded than others. The World Bank links many of its loans and financial assistance with the teaching of English.
Fishman (1977) once argued that language is ideologically neutral. However, Kachru (1985) led the criticism of this view by championing the legitimacy of varieties of English beyond the “inner circle”. Phillipson (1992) went further, arguing that English is one of the chief weapons of western imperialism and that the language always embodies this history. Skutnabb-Kangas (1995) coined the phrase ‘linguicism’ to make a parallel with racism and to call for the recognition of linguistic human rights These struggles culminated in the 1996 United Nations Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights.
So, is the teaching of English “an updated version of the white man’s burden, an ideological tool for the new world order” (Edge, 2003, p. 4)? Many scholars would point to the extinction of indigenous languages and the adoption of neo-liberal discourses in language policy documents as proofs of this. However, Eagleton (1995) noted that language is ‘porous’, in the sense that it is dynamic and socially-based. And other scholars have noted how English has been adopted by second language speakers for their own purposes. (Canagarajah, 1999; Kano, 2001). Recent scholarship has even challenged the notions of discreet languages and fluency (Alim, Ibrahim, & Pennycook, 2009).
curricular implications: In choosing linguistic elements, how do you honor non-standard varieties (e.g. ‘Black English’)? How can this be done while ensuring that students are attentive to the standard varieties that often act as gate keeping devices? How might this effect how one chooses non-linguistic elements for the curriculum (e.g. what attitude should you adopt to controversial themes and topics)? How might one’s procedural choices be affected (e.g. does one adopt an English Only policy in the classroom)? What are the implications for testing and assessment?