Practical N° 1: Realities and myths of LINGUISTIC IMPERIALISM

Realities and myths of LINGUISTIC IMPERIALISM , by Robert Phillipson.

QUESTIONNAIRE. Answer Questions 12,13,14 and 15 and hand them in next class April 7^th, 2015.

1. According to Phillipson where does imperialism linger now that colonialism is over?

2. What is his definition of linguistic imperialism? What does it involve?

3. What does he mean by “the hidden past of ELT “that his book brings into focus?

4. Who would the concepts language spread / language death relate to?

5. How does his work relate to human rights law?

6. How does linguicism work?

7. Where does linguistic imperialismtake place?

8. Who determine language policies in post-colonial days?

9. How does linguicism affect pedagogic practices?

10. What is the purpose of this article by Phillipson?

11. What is his argument to prove that language plays an essential role in North-South relations?

12. How does he counteract A.D.’s faith that “English fits on all counts”?

13. What are the consequences for foreign language education? (page 8)

14. What solution does Clinton Robinson (page 8) propose?

15. What views does Canagarajah pose on this matter (1995)?

12. He counteract A.D.’s faith that “English fits in all counts” explaining that there is evidence globally that linguistic and cultural diversity is a source of richness, of uniqueness and of distinctiveness. He also affirms that if the world moves towards a pattern of global diglossia, with English as the language of the haves (including elites in South countries), while the have-nots and never-to-haves are confined to other languages, this would represent one of the most sinister consequences of globalization, McDonaldisation and linguistic imperialism.

13. The consequences for foreign language education are related with applying linguistic acts in consonance with the dominant aid paradigm. It connives in the false representation of global power by a pretense of being non-political, by pedagogical and linguistic agendas being relatively explicit but the political agenda being banished beyond the professional pale. Besides, the political disconnection is accompanied by cultural disconnection because the failure of ELT personnel, who are “experts” in language learning, is not to learn how local languages epitomize.

14. The solution that Clinton Robison’s proposes is to formulate and articulate multilingual strategies for education, communication and every sector of social life, defining more closely what the real need for English in specific contexts is and making wider choices viable and available. In many places this means developing local languages for educational use: materials, teachers, trainers, etc.

15. Canagarajah poses that the framework could be improved by more inspiration from postmodernist discourse analysis, mainly in order to bring more agency into the analysis, particularly the voices of the periphery, those who are using English for a multiplicity of purposes, for instance to challenge ELT orthodoxies in the classroom. Another of his views is that education has its own vitality in the periphery that the establishment, including the aid business, is insensitive to: nativized versions of English, novel English discourses in post-colonial literature, and substitution of vernacular in conventional contexts for English use. All these are quiet ways in which resistance against English has already begun, often challenging the values and ideologies which undergird the institutions that accompany the dominance of English.

Natalia Evangelista