The Linguistic Imperialism of Robert Phillips

English in Diverse world contexts

The Linguistic imperialism of Robert Phillipson

1. Linguistic Imperialism

1.1 The spread of English

The stated aim of Phillipson’s 1992 book Linguistic Imperialism was to set out how

English became so dominant and why, and to examine the role ELT pedagogy had

in contributing to it becoming “the international language par excellence in which the

fate of most of the worlds millions is decided.” (Phillipson 1992 p.6) While many

writers had tackled the question before no one had done so from the type of critical,

socio-linguistic standpoint taken by Phillipson. Whereas for David Crystal, and other

commentators, the rise of English is a largely neutral phenomenon, achieved “by

repeatedly finding itself at the right place at the right time” (Crystal 1997, p.110) for

Phillipson, the spread of English is no happy accident and his book is no

dispassionate examination of the natural evolution of a language. According to

Phillipson the English language has been, and continues to be, propelled by the

deliberate manipulation of economic, political, intellectual and social forces in order

to “legitimate, effectuate and reproduce an unequal division of power and resources.”

(Phillipson 1992 p.47) and create a culture of what Phillipson calls, linguistic

imperialism.

For Phillipson the ELT industry and ELT pedagogy are not innocent bystanders in

the rise of English language hegemony but are complicit in a neo-colonial agenda

that he sees as driving English to its current position. He contends that the popular

view of the spread of English as ‘an incontrovertible boon’ is misplaced and that the

discourse that currently ties learning English to ‘progress and prosperity’ is in fact

Page 1


‘scientifically fallacious’ (ibid p.8). While accepting that English is no longer imposed

by force as it was in colonial times he is deeply suspicious of the popular view that

the demand for English is governed by such benign forces as “the state of the

market (‘demand’) and force of argument (rational planning in light of the facts).” (ibid

p.8) For Phillipson imperialist control need no longer come from the barrel of a gun

and “the progression from one type of imperialist control to another parallels the way

power can be asserted by means of sticks, carrots and ideas” (ibid p.53) For

Phillipson the spread of English is still implicitly connected to the imperialist urges of

colonial times and recent ELT policy and practice has been deliberately directed

towards maintaining the domination of Western centre countries over those in the

developing periphery. “English serves to consolidate the interests of the powerful

globally and locally and to maintain an imbalanced exploitative world order, to

disenfranchise speakers of other languages.” (2008 p.6)

Far from the ideas of some commentators that the global spread of English “presents

us with unprecedented ideas for mutual understanding” (Crystal p.266) or that “the

world needs a global language and English is the best candidate” (Quirk, 1990

p.105) for Phillipson “the tension between English as an invasive, imperialist

language and the promises that it holds out is not straightforward.” and “arguments

in favour of expanding the use of English must be weighed against concern about

educational and social inequality deriving from continued use of English.” (2008

p.10) The question then is whether English will “continue to spread as a second

language the world over as a benevolent bonus or creeping cancer of modernity”

(ibid p.11) For Phillipson the answer is clear.

Page 2


1.2 A definition of Linguistic Imperialism

According to Phillipson, linguistic imperialism “refers to a particular theory for

analysing relations between dominant and dominated cultures and specifically the

way English language learning has been promoted.” (ibid p.15) For Phillipson

language is one of many structures by which communities can be categorised and

discriminated against, similar to gender, age and race, and while language does not

in itself effect inequality it is “a construct exploited by politico-economic structures to

carry out their agenda of dominance.” (Canagarajah, p.41)

At the centre of Phillipson’s argument is the concept of ‘linguicism’ first defined by

Tove Skutnabb-Kangas as a form of “linguistically argued racism” (Skutnabb-

Kangas, 1988 p.13) Phillipson himself defines linguicism as ‘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.” (1992 p.47). A practical example of

linguicism given by Phillipson would be the allocation of resources or materials to

one rather than another language or when a priority is given to one language for

teacher training, curriculum development or school timetabling. According to

Phillipson linguicism “refers exclusively to ideologies and structures where language

is the means for effecting or maintaining an unequal allocation of power and

resources.” (ibid, p.55)

Linguistic imperialism is a sub-form of linguicism, becoming manifest when “the

dominance of English is asserted and maintained by the establishment and

Page 3


continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and

other languages.” (ibid p.47) Accordingly Phillipson sees the English language in and

of itself as neutral but its exploitation by colonial and neo-colonial powers to exert

and perpetuate their hegemony ultimately makes it culpable by association.

Phillipson follows Galtung’s theory of cultural imperialism dividing the world into a

centre, core English speaking countries, and its peripheries where English is either a

second or “international link language” (1992, p.17). Phillipson argues that this

relationship is essentially one of “structural and systemic inequality, in which the

political and economic hegemony of Western Anglophone powers is established or

maintained over scores of developing nations.” (Kachru et al The handbook of world

Englishes, p.257).

1.3 The role of English language teaching

For Phillipson the ELT establishment, and certain institutions in particular1, play a

clear role in supporting linguistic imperialism and he believes: “there is a very strong

case for claiming that ELT and the intellectual tradition behind it are neo-colonialist”.

(1992 p.72) He sees ELT as culpable for propagating and perpetuating a number of

pedagogic tenets that have been promoted not, as is commonly thought because

they are best practice, but in order to maintain the pre-eminent position of English

over other languages and to safeguard the interests of the centre nations. These

‘fallacies’, as they are referred to by Phillipson are:

The monolingual fallacy: that English is best taught without reference to the

learners native language

1 Particular opprobrium is reserved for the British Council

Page 4


The native speaker fallacy: that the best teacher is a speaker from one of the

centre countries

The early start fallacy: that the earlier a language is learnt the better it is

mastered

The maximum exposure fallacy: the more English one comes into contact with

the better it is learnt

The subtractive fallacy: the less a student speaks other languages the better

their English will become

These fallacies are a part of what Phillipson terms the ‘professionalism’ and

‘anglocentricity’ of ELT, which he sees as legitimating methods, techniques and

procedures which are in the interests of the centre nations but which may be neither

appropriate for, nor in the interest of the periphery. According to Phillipson the ELT

industry is at fault for believing that the accepted methods, techniques and

procedures of current thinking are enough to understand the complexities of

language learning and for failing to critically analyse certain unsound foundations

that underpin it. For Phillipson “ELT professionalism excludes broader societal

issues, the prerequisites and consequences of ELT activity, from its professional

purview.” (ibid) and represents a mechanism for exerting control over centre

countries vested interests. By promoting these ‘myths’ ELT helps to ‘legitimate’ the

dominance of English by “rationalising activities and beliefs which contribute to the

structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages.” (ibid.) This

‘rationalising’ of beliefs raises a serious concern with Phillipson’s argument since it

leads very quickly to the conclusion that it is impossible for any outer or developing

Page 5


circle writer to actually challenge his assertion that the spread of English is inherently

pernicious.

1.4 Hegemony

While many would be happy to accept Joseph Bisong’s claim that “those in the

Periphery who opt for education in English do so for pragmatic reasons to do with

maximising their chances of success in a multilingual and multicultural society”

(Bisong 1995 p.126) for Phillipson arguments of this kind are simply delusory. The

belief that learning English represents a free choice in periphery countries, driven by

market demand, is in fact merely another demonstration of the hegemonic nature of

the language and further proof of the neo-imperialist nature of English language

dominance. While he accepts that arguments for the ‘neutral’ or ‘non-political’ nature

of English language teaching may seem ‘intuitively commonsensical’ this, he

believes, is “only in the Gramscian sense of being based on beliefs which reflect the

dominant ideology. Hegemonic ideas tend to be internalized by the dominated, even

though they are not objectively in their interest.” (ibid. p.8) Such a stance, according

to Bisong, is simply ‘patronising’ and “carries the implication that users of [periphery

languages] do not know what is in their interest.” (Bisong p.131)

If linguistic imperialism is to be sufficient to explain the global spread of English,

rather than simply a contributing factor in it, then Phillipson relies heavily on the

claim that the ‘normalisation’ and acceptance of English are actually a reflection of its

current hegemony. Phillipson refers to Raymond Williams definition of hegemony as

“a set of meanings and values which as they are experienced as practices appear as

reciprocally confirming.” (1992 p.72) According to Phillipson English has attained a

Page 6


status whereby its assumed position is now taken for granted and its dominant role

in the world “is accepted as the natural state of affairs rather than a choice which

reflects particular interests.” (1992, p. 72) This acceptance for Phillipson is entirely

misplaced. As such Bisong’s claim to a freedom of choice is, for Phillipson no such

thing but rather a manifestation of the dangerous control English and ELT has taken

over the minds of the dominated. “The pre-eminence of English is legitimated as

being a ‘common sense’ social fact, thus concealing whose interests are being

served by the dominant ideology and dominant professional practice.” (1992 p.76)

Maintaining such a stance seemingly leaves Phillipson in the unfortunate position of

having to dismiss all claims to independent decision making on the part of English

language learners and educators the world over. As a result he has often been

accused of dismissing the role of periphery nations and even of peddling his own

imperialist agenda. Whatever side he takes ultimately Phillipson can only adopt the

perspective of the centre2 and, aside from accusations that he suffers from post-

colonial guilt (see Rajagopalan 1999) it is difficult for him to counter the accusation

that his arguments are inherently patronising. According to Brutt-Griffler, “the

conceptual lens of linguistic imperialism obscures the role of Africans, Asians and

other peoples of the world as active agents in the process of creation of world

English.” (Brutt-Griffler p.107) and other commentators have argued that what may

initially seem like a noble effort to save endangered languages and preserve

linguistic diversity could, by another token, be seen as “a subtle kind of manipulation,

2 Phillipson himself points out that “There is a sense in which we are inescapably committed to the ethnocentricity of our own world view, however much insight and understanding we have of other cultures.” (Phillipson, p.48.) It is not entirely clear though that Phillipson accepts that his view can only ever be that of an Oxford educated, white male from a former colonial power, with all the emotional and intellectual baggage that accompanies this.

Page 7


even imperialism, stemming from an arbitrary western intellectual agenda.” (Hellinger

2005, p.25.) Certainly it is difficult for Phillipson to deny (and at times he seems

uncomfortably aware) that his work by necessity stems from the “same competitive,

progress oriented western paradigm” that portrays indigenous people as “weak,

helpless, disadvantaged, exploited and indigenous” (Hellinger, 2005 p.25)

2. Criticisms of Phillipson

2.1 The world is too complex

Perhaps the most common criticism of Phillipson’s work is that in trying to present a

macroscopic treatment of the issue he ultimately presents a picture that is too

remote, too simple and too theoretical to cover the complexities that underlie each

individual context. Suresh Canagarajah takes issue with Phillipson’s remoteness,

claiming his perspective is “too impersonal and global... missing the individual, the

local, the particular.” (Canagarajah, p.41) The result for Canagarajah is that there “is

little sense of the classroom” with Phillipson failing to show “how linguistic

inequalities are effected, propagated, or played out in instructional contexts in the

periphery.” (ibid, p.42) In adopting such an impersonal perspective Phillipson is

unable to consider how, in fact, English could be adopted to empower local

communities and resist the influence of the centre. Adopting a more micro-societal

perspective would, according to Canagarajah, not only allow Phillipson to take

account of the “lived culture and everyday experience of periphery communities [but

would] also help qualify some of his claims.” (ibid, p.42) Phillipson’s failure to engage

on this more detailed level leaves him open to the accusation that that his arguments

“show a failure to appreciate fully the complexities of the situation” (Bisong, p.131).

Page 8


While these criticisms may have some justification they miss-place what Phillipson is

trying to achieve, which as Phillipson clearly states at the beginning of Linguistic

Imperialism is to situate ELT in “a macro-societal theoretical perspective” (Phillipson

1992 p.2) Indeed it is Phillipson’s contention that his own analysis can “probe

beyond individual experience and reflection to the processes and structures which

are in operation at the international, national, group and personal levels.” (My italics

1992 p.2)Accepting that Phillipson is trying to examine a global phenomenon it

seems unreasonable to expect him to be too concerned with the everyday realities of

English teaching and learning in each and every context. However, Canagarajah’s

criticisms do point to the sweeping way in which Phillipson considers all learners in

periphery countries as essentially the same which, if he is to deny them their own

voice, is a dangerous thing to do.

2.2 Colonial language policy and historical accuracy

While several early commentators singled out smaller problems with Phillipson’s

work other writers have since questioned the validity and historical accuracy of

Phillipson’s underlying premise. Brutt-Griffler in World Englishes takes issue with

whether ‘linguistic imperialism’ is even a useful concept, contesting that: “for

linguistic imperialism to be a consistent explanatory framework, English must have

developed as the product of a conscious policy developed and put into effect during

the colonial epoch.” (p.29) and this, she concludes did not exist. Brutt-Griffler points

to the paucity of historical and empirical evidence provided by Phillipson and

concludes that “rather than a detailed empirical study of the question Phillipson tries

to substantiate the requisites of a linguistic imperialist policy through repeated

Page 9


assertion of their presence” (ibid. p.30) This impression was also had by a group of

graduate students tackling the book who found that “It seemed to us that the author

was more concerned with imposing his views, which we were to accept on faith and

not on the basis of evidence that would allow us to draw our own conclusions.”

(Berns et al p.275) After an extensive review of colonial language policy Brutt-Griffler

takes issue with Phillipson to the extent that she is prepared put forward the quite

contrary idea that: “rather than a unidirectional process carried out from an imperial

centre, the spread of English involved a contested terrain in which English was not

unilaterally imposed on passive subjects, but wrested from an unwilling imperial

authority as part of the struggle by them against colonialism.” (ibid. p.31)

Other commentators have also noted that they can find no real evidence that the

spread of English was related to a clear language policy. Bernard Spolsky points out

that if any were to be found “then it would be an outstanding example of the success

of a language policy” (Spolsky, 2004, p.80) but after some reflection concludes

simply “that there is no evidence for this claim” (ibid, p.90). Others have questioned

the historical accuracy of Phillipson’s interpretation of events at the Makerere

conference, an event to which Phillipson refers to as “undoubtedly the most

important landmark of the period of ELT expansion” (Phillipson 1992, p.66) and from

which he claims the five tenets/ fallacies of ELT, referred to earlier, came. In his

review of linguistic imperialism Alan Davies wonders where Phillipson took the tenets

from before concluding that they do not in fact represent a true reflection of the

findings of the conference. That the 5 tenets / fallacies exist and have held sway in

ELT for some time is not in question but, as Davies notes this type of factual

inaccuracy points to Phillipson’s determinism and perhaps suggests an attempt to

Page 10


institutionalise a more naturally occurring phenomenon. This has enabled opponents

such as Davies (1994), Spolsky (2004) and others to feel able to dismiss Phillipson’s

work as a ‘conspiracy’ theory.

2.3 Hyperbole and post-colonial guilt

Although not a direct criticism of his overall theory Phillipson has done little to

encourage reasonable debate about his work and one reason it is sometimes

dismissed is because of his occasionally forthright approach. His often hyperbolic

language3 and tendency towards the extreme4 leave him open to the accusation that

his work amounts to little more than a “hotchpotch of political innuendo.” (Crystal

1999 p.421) And the sometimes polemical nature of his writing means that, whatever

truth there may be in the view that there is a correlation between linguistic and

political hierarchy, his case may be “blown by its overstatement” (Crystal in

Seidlhofer p.68)

In revisiting linguistic imperialism Margie Berns et al report that they spent

considerable time sorting through their negative reactions “trying to understand why

even those among us most likely to be in sympathy with his position were offended

by his tone and as a result distracted from the story he wanted to tell.” (Berns et al

1998 p.274) In some ways this may seem unfortunate and irrelevant but Phillipson’s

3 At various times he refers to English as a ‘lingua Frankensteina’, describing it as a ‘killer language’ and accusing it of causing ‘linguistic genocide’.

4 “Monolingualism is an illness, a disease which should be eradicated as soon as possible, because it is dangerous for world peace” Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson 1989 p.469)

Page 11


apparent refusal to engage critically with subsequent debate is a significant

shortcoming in his work and points to an underlying concern about his intentions.

This is compounded by Phillipson’s apparent awareness of the fact that some of the

language of Linguistic Imperialism is not best suited to reasonable dialogue. On

being asked why a later work was less confrontational in its outlook than linguistic

Imperialism Phillipson responded: “I feared that if started waving around labels like

linguistic imperialism early on, then I would not enter into dialogue with the policy-

makers who might be frightened off by that sort of terminology.” (Phillipson and

Karmani 2005 p.248)

While such criticism may not impact directly on his central thesis it does point to a

shortcoming in his work which is its overall entrenched negativity and lack of a

suggested way forward. Phillipson is happy to denounce the spread of English (and

its accompanying culture) in the strongest possible terms and yet is either not

inclined or unable to suggest a way forward. “While Phillipson’s concerns are

important, they still seem to leave us with the question of what to do pedagogically

with English.” (Pennycook, 1994, p.308)

3. English in a global age

3.1 Alternatives to Phillipson

Since Linguistic Imperialism appeared several other writers, applied linguists and

ELT practitioners have speculated on the future of English or have directly taken up

the challenge put down by Phillipson as to how “ELT can contribute constructively to

greater linguistic and social equality” (Phillipson, 1992, p.319) I shall now look briefly

Page 12


at the ideas of those who have tackled Phillipson most directly or who have done

most to take forward the issues that arose his work. I refer to David Crystal first as,

although he does not respond to Phillipson’s challenge and is not particularly

connected to the field of ELT, his position demonstrates the type of complacency

about the role of English in the world that so infuriates Phillipson.

3.1 David Crystal: World Standard Spoken English

David Crystal’s position is perhaps the one furthest from that of Phillipson and I refer

to it here as it is the position which most provokes his ire. In a slightly bad-tempered

review of Crystal’s English as a global language Phillipson took Crystal to task for

being both “Eurocentric “ and “triumphalist” and for celebrating the rise of English

while failing to recognise or take seriously the negative effects of its spread. While

Phillipson’s criticism is a little harsh, Crystal does indicate an ambivalence to the

spread of English claiming, “it is not possible to identify cause and effect ... we can

only point to the emergence of a climate of largely unspoken opinion which had

made English the natural choice for progress.” (Crystal , 1997, p.75)

While Crystal acknowledges that there are or will be ‘new Englishes’ it is not clear

that he sees this, in the same way as Braj Kachru and other pluralists. For Crystal

the current varieties of English are simply those native speaking countries and the

most obvious example of a ‘new’ English to Crystal is the difference between

American and British dialects. Although Crystal recognises that international varieties

of English “express national identities and are a way of reducing the conflict between

intelligibility and identity” (Crystal, p.134) he does not see the proliferation of English

as a politicised issue, somewhat trivially likening new Englishes to “the dialects we

Page 13


recognise within our own country.” (Crystal p.133)5 Ultimately Crystal expects to see

the rise of what he calls ‘World Standard Spoken English’ (WSSE), but it seems he

thinks WSSE will be merely a form of American English that will sit comfortably next

to a speaker’s native language. For Crystal it is a straightforward, win-win situation

with no political or ideological baggage: “The concept of WSSE does not replace a

national dialect: it supplements it. [People] have a dialect in which they can continue

to express their national identity, and they have a dialect in which can guarantee

international intelligibility, when they need it. People do not need to give up their

national linguistic identities just because they are going to an international meeting. ”

(Crystal p.138-9)

A polite view of the position would be that it sees English somehow remotely, as

divorced from social context, representing an uncritical acceptance of English as part

of a globalised world, and for some this would be sufficient criticism of the position.

Crystal’s type of position sees the diffusion of English as natural and ultimately

positive, stressing an agents’ choice in adopting English and pointing to its

usefulness in a globalised world.

3.2 Braj Kachru vs Randolph Quirk: Institutionalised English(es)

Although now something of an umbrella term ‘world Englishes’ was a term originally

coined by Bradj Kachru who classified certain types of English using the analogy of

three concentric circles. Kachru’s position and that of those who have followed his

lead is characterised by an underlying philosophy that argues for pluricentralism and

the recognition of multifarious Englishes. At its core is the belief that English “now

5 Admittedly Crystal is writing a popular book for the mass market.

Page 14


belongs to those who use it as their first language, and to those who use it as an

additional language, whether in its standard form or in its localised forms.” (Kachru

and Smith 1985, p.210) In contrast to Phillipson’s insistence that possession of

English will always be a source of division between western neo-colonialists and the

English language user on whom the language is imposed, Kachru’s ideas emphasis

the “WE-ness’, and not the dichotomy between us and them (the native and non-

native users).” (Kachru 1992, p.2)

Kachru’s insistence on recognition of the varieties of English was seen to prompt

Randolph Quirk to write a celebrated paper denouncing what he saw as a deliberate

but woefully misguided attempt to undermine the standard of English. In “Language

varieties and standard English” Quirk argued that any suggestion that there could be

anything other than native and non-native varieties of English would be extremely

damaging and dismissed the idea out of hand, suggesting that “the implications for

attempting the institutionalisation of non-native varieties of any language are too

obvious to mention.” (Quirk, 1990 p.5). For Quirk the idea that there could be

tolerance of linguistic pluralism was “quite horrendous” (ibid, p.8). Although only 20

years old Quirk’s paper already seems quaint and dated and perhaps typifies the

type of linguistic chauvinism that Phillipson was so at pains to attack. Kachru’s notion

of Englishes is now commonly accepted and large volumes detailing and recording

the varieties and differences of Englishes multiply by the year.

3.4 Alastair Pennycook: Critical pedagogies

Pennycook’s position takes on from where Phillipson left off, largely accepting most

of Phillipson’s assertions about the role of imperialism in language spread, but

Page 15


proposing a way forward based on ‘critical pedagogies’. Pennycook readily accepts

that centre countries have promoted English to their own ends in order to “protect

and promote capitalist interests” (Pennycook, 1994, p.22) and he also accepts that

ELT has played a role in “helping to legitimate the contemporary capitalist order.”

(1994, p.24) Where Pennycook differs from Phillipson is that he does not accept that

English and ELT need be a tool of neo-colonialist empire and he would rather see

‘critical English language educators’ using English to create “a critical, transformative

and listening critical pedagogy” that will create, what Pennycook calls “counter-

discourses” and “insurgent knowledges” (Pennycook, 1994, p.326).

For Pennycook all education is essentially political and schools are “cultural and

political arenas where different cultural, ideological social forms are constantly in

struggle.” (Pennycook 1994, p.297) For Pennycook then the responsibility is that of

the educator to help the learner critically engage with the language in order to ‘write

back’ against the colonial oppressor. For Pennycook it is essential that learners

have access to a standard form on English in order that “they have access to those

forms of the language that are of particular significance in significant discourses.” but

they need to be aware that “those forms represent only one set of particular

possibilities” (Pennycook, 1994, p.316) For Pennycook the learner should be

encouraged to ‘break’ the language in order to create new possibilities and find ways

of using the language that meets their needs so that “they can claim and negotiate a

voice in English”. (Pennycook, 1994. P.318)

3.4 Canagarajah: Appropriating discourse

Page 16


In line with his criticisms of Phillipson it is Canagarajah’s aim to go beyond, what he

refers to, as the ‘stereotypical’ and simplistic stances of: ‘English – good’, ‘English –

bad’, and instead re-position the debate within it’s real and lived social context in

order to “reflect on the diverse interests and motivations of individuals” and take

account of “the creative processes of linguistic meditation, interaction, and fusion

that take place in social life” (Canagarajah, 1999, p.3) For Canagarajah language

learning is ideological and as such can be used to engage and negotiate with

agencies of power. In a similar vein to Kachru, Canagarajah sees English as

becoming pluralized and varied with standard English “being infused with diverse

alternate grammars and conventions” in order to “take ideological resistance into the

very heart of English.” (ibid p.175)

For Canagarajah there should be a ‘third’ way , an approach to teaching and learning

that acknowledges the imperialist roots of ELT and neither rejects nor accepts it

wholesale but which allows learners to “appropriate the language in their own terms,

according to their needs, values and aspirations.” (Canagarajah, 1999 p.176)

According to Canagarajah learners do not have to simply reproduce the language of

the imperialist oppressor while accepting the values imported with it but can turn the

language to their own needs thus making themselves ‘insiders’. By taking the

language and making it their own language learners can “reposition themselves to

use English “not as slaves, but as agents; to use English not mechanically and

diffidently, but creatively and critically” (ibid p.176)

4. Conclusion

Page 17


Whatever one’s opinion about Linguistic Imperialism it is now accepted that it

opened up debate about the socio-linguistic and ethical impact of the spread of

English. As Henry Widdowson and others have pointed out Phillipson’s work

“initiated debate and even those who opposed his views felt obliged to look more

critically into the issues it raised in such a provocative fashion.” (Widdowson, 2005,

p.362) Although similar concerns had been aired previously in the field of socio-

linguistics Phillipson brought the discussion to a much broader audience and

specifically that of ELT where “his open anti-imperialist stance starkly uncovered

English teaching agents’ complacency about the divisive effect of their policies and

the alienation that colonial attitudes have engendered.” (Holborrow, 1999, p.75-76)

Since 1992, debate about linguistic imperialism has been subsumed into a much

broader discussion about ‘global’, ‘world’ or ‘international’ English(es), with heated

discussion centring on issues of language rights and language ‘ownership’ and the

role and status of regional varieties alongside discussions about whose standards

and norms should apply. Phillipson himself now focuses almost solely on issues of

linguistic human rights, moving his focus from the former colonial empire to the EU

and away from the broader debates being pursued by the likes of Pennycook and

Canagarajah. It is tempting to suggest that Phillipson’s main interest in English now

is in attempting to minimise its use.

Another outcome of Phillipson’s work has been to raise awareness of the importance

of the role and agency of speakers from the periphery in the development of English.

Phillipson’s insistence on the hegemony of English ultimately stripped them of

agency and, in a sense it was a backlash against Phillipson by Canagarajah and

Page 18


others that led to a far greater acceptance of the role of non-native speakers and

teachers in forming the future of English. In contemporary debates, speakers of

World Englishes are no longer portrayed as “helpless and passive victims of some

international conspiracy of linguistic imperialism but active participants who use

English for their own ends, and in the process actively contribute to the development

and spread of World Englishes.” (Hung, 2009, p.44) In the contemporary global

world English users have access to English language resources from both the centre

and the periphery and thus “in its emerging role as a world language, English has no

native speakers.” (Rajagopalan, 2004 p.112)

Phillipson’s work, along with that of Pennycook, also helped create a greater

awareness of the importance of positioning English within a much broader global

economic picture than had previously been the case. Rather than seeing it as a

subject sealed off from the world, whose focus is on the best and most expedient

way of acquiring a language; ELT practitioners can now look to develop a “linguistics

that treats human agency, contextuality, diversity, indeterminacy, and multimodality

as the norm.” (Canagarajah, 2007, p.98) Likewise scholars are moving away from

Phillipson’s conception of a single monolithic ‘English’ that seeks to bully and

dominate other languages considering it “less as a discreet object – even with its

variations – that can be taught only in its presence, and rather to deal with English as

multilingual, as a language always in translation, as a language always under

negotiation.” (Pennycook, 2008)

Page 19


Bibliography

Brutt - Griffler, J. (2002) World English: AStudy of Its Development . Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

Canagarajah, S. (1999) Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching,

Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Canagarajah, S. (1999b) On EFL teachers, awareness and agency. ELT Journal

53(3) 207-214.

Canagarajah, S. (2007) ‘The ecology of global English’, International Multilingual

Research Journal, 1 (2): 89–100.

Crystal, D. (1997) English as a Global Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Crystal, D (2000) Review. “On Trying to be Crystal-Clear: a response to Phillipson”,

Applied Linguistics 21/3 415-423.

Davies, A. (1996) Review article: Ironising the myth of linguicism. Journal of

Multilingual and Multicultural Development 17(6), 485–96.

Graddol, D. (1997) The Future of English? London: The British Council.

Graddol, D. (2006) English Next: Why Global English May Mean the End of ‘English

as a Foreign Language’, London: British Council.

Holborrow, M. (1993) "Review Article: Linguistic Imperialism". ELT Journal 47/4

358-360.

Page 20


Holborrow, M. (1999) The politics of English: a Marxist view of language, Sage

publications

Kachru, B. (1986) The Alchemy of English. The Spread, Function and Models of

Non-native Englishes. Oxford a.o.: Pergamon.

Kachru, B. (1992) ‘World Englishes: approaches, issues and resources’, Language

Teaching, 25: 1–14.

Pennycook, A. (1994) The Cultural Politics of English as International Language,

London: Longman.

Pennycook, A. (2003) “Beyond homogeny and heterogeny: English as a global and

worldly language.” In C. Mair (Ed) The Cultural Politics of English. Amsterdam:

Rodopi

Pennycook, A. (2008) ‘English as a language always in translation’, European

Journal of English Studies, 12 (1):13–47.

Pennycook, A. (2010) ‘The future of Englishes: One many or none? In Handbook of

world Englishes ed. Kirkpatrick, Routledge

Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism . Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Phillipson, R (1999a) "Linguistic Imperialism Re-Visited - or Reinvented. A

Rejoinder to a Review Essay". International Journal of Applied Linguistics 9/1. 135-7.

Phillipson, R. (1999b) Voice in global English: Unheard chords in Crystal loud and

clear. Review of David Crystal, English as a Global Language, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Applied Linguistics 20/2: 265-276.

Phillipson, R (2008) ‘The linguistic imperialism of neoliberal empire’, Critical Inquiry

in Language Studies, 5 (1):1–43.

Quirk, R. (1990) ‘Language varieties and standard language’ English Today 6 ( 1 ):

3 – 10 .

Page 21


Rajagopalan, K (1999) "Of EFL Teachers, Conscience and Cowardice. " ELT

Journal 53/3 200-206.

Rajagopalan, K. (2004) ‘The concept of “World English” and its implications for

ELT’, ELT Journal, 58 (2): 111–17.

Seidlhofer, B (2002) “Habeas corpus and divide et impera: Global English and

applied linguistics”. In K Spelman Miller and P. Thompson (eds) Unity and Diversity

in Language use. London: Continuum.

Spolsky, B (2004) Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Widdowson, H (2005) ‘Correspondence’, ELTJ, 59 (4) p.362

Page 22

Documents

The Linguistic Imperialism of Robert Phillips