Simon Sweeney questions the implications of internationalisation.
In the second edition of his book English as a Global Language, David Crystal reported that there were now more non-native speakers of the language than native speakers. This gave support to the idea that English could shed its imperialist image since it would no longer be tied to a place, or even a collection of places, oddly termed the Anglo-Saxon countries. No longer would English be so intimately associated with those cultural icons of Englishness in framed posters on the walls of British Council schools across the world: Queen Elizabeth II, London Routemaster buses, red telephone boxes, black cabs, Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament. Now universally accepted as an international language and a lingua franca, and spoken by almost 20 per cent of the world’s population, English belonged to no one other than its speakers. The terms ‘Queen’s English’, ‘BBC English’ and ‘Oxford English’ could be consigned to history as mere ‘varieties’, not standards. The terms English as an International Language (EIL), or English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), are increasingly applied, although as Alan Maley pointed out in the last issue of ETp, they have even less relevance as ‘standards’, partly because it would be difficult to describe EIL/EFL consistently and to the satisfaction of all users. David Graddol has also commented on the shift away from the native-speaker model as the target, towards an aim for what is comprehensible. This means that learners’ English is marked by national identity in terms of accent and speakers need to develop the ability ‘to negotiate understanding with another non-native speaker’. But the internationalisation of English led to a further claim: not only was English no longer territorially bound, it was effectively undergoing deculturisation. English had become simply another tool of communication. English partnered the internet, launched in 1990, as one half of the twin-engine force that was driving contemporary globalisation. This perspective, I believe, is completely at odds with reality. English carries with it a powerful cultural dynamic, and one that is arguably encapsulated by the globalisation juggernaut. It is just possible that English language teaching practitioners are unwittingly engaged in a proselytising mission on behalf of neoliberal globalisation, or at the very least, as Maley points out, on behalf of consumerism. English and globalisation This article argues that English has by no means divested itself of a cultural hinterland. On the contrary, it embraces a huge range of messages, icons and brands that together constitute a cultural hegemony far greater than the British Empire ever achieved, and greater even than that implied by Americanisation. This force is globalisation itself. Kayman writes that English is the language of globalisation and its territory is no longer a set of countries, it is communication itself. Such a conclusion may cause unease among many ELT practitioners who feel distinctly unhappy about contemporary globalisation. Globalisation is a phenomenon arguably dominated by the preferences of multinational corporations, most of them American. Many owe their power to connections with the US military-industrial complex and leading oil companies. Neoliberalism implies privatisation, free but not necessarily fair trade, unfettered access to developing markets, acquisition of the natural resources in developing countries, and the liberalisation of the financial and telecommunications sectors where the US and the UK have significant competitive advantages. Neoliberal globalisation emerged as the only show in town. Even Communist China appears to accept great swathes of this medicine with alacrity, and India likewise. Thus the two largest developing countries lead an Asian economic expansion that portends a very different world order in perhaps a couple of decades. This prospect might tempt us to look for an alternative way to earn our daily crust. However, I believe it would be premature to give up just yet. In any case, there may be other quite different reasons why ELT professionals might consider alternative employment, but more of that later. English and the developing countries Let us consider briefly some of the literature from comparative education and development studies in so far as it addresses issues concerning English as a medium of instruction in Less Developed Countries (LDCs). There seem to be two strands of thought. One is that in various post-colonial contexts, English had always been an elite language, of benefit to the small middle classes and viewed as a prerequisite for access to the best educational opportunities (often abroad) and the most favoured professions, or top government positions. Imam reports that in Bangladesh after independence in 1972 there was a reaction against English that sought to restore the local language, Bangla, as the medium of instruction at all levels of education up to university. Bangla was viewed as central to the project of nation building for the newly independent state. In Sri Lanka likewise, Dore reports that Tamil communities in particular rejected English as elitist and secular. Tamils favoured education through Hindi, which carried identification with Hindu culture, whereas English carried the cultural baggage of secularism. In post-colonial Tanzania, President Nyerere proclaimed that Swahili should replace English as the medium of instruction in all levels of education, including universities, and atthe same time called for a new emphasis on Tanzanian culture and identity. (These examples are selected at random from various post-colonial contexts.) In contrast to these rejectionist approaches, other countries demonstrate precisely the opposite. Nunan reported a study across much of the Asia Pacific region which found not only enthusiasm for the learning of English and its privileged position in the curriculum, but also for globalisation and the material benefits it promises. English is seen as an essential instrument in the economic development of many LDCs. In Malaysia, the switch away from English in the 1970s was ultimately blamed for holding back economic development and the policy was reversed. In Ghana, Mfum-Mensah reports a grass-roots rejection of any move away from English as the medium of instruction in schools, as parents see English as essential to improving the employment prospects of their children. Indeed the widespread support for more, rather than less, English language instruction in developing countries would seem to indicate that the misgivings of those who feel uncomfortable about contributing to the process of globalisation are misplaced. Our students and their sponsors want English, and as already stated above, they want the globalisation that in many respects we question or even reject outright. Maley, however, points out that while the globalisation of English has raised its status as a tool of opportunity, it is by no means a sufficient condition for the success of the dispossessed. He writes that ‘English tends to reinforce the power of the already powerful … people whose success is bolstered and extended by membership of the exclusive “English-speaking club”. Entry to that club depends not only on proficiency in the English language.’ English and the ELT industry The status of English as the language of contemporary globalisation is beyond dispute. Not only is English the dominant language of the web, it is also the language of academia and of technological innovation. Its progress, and that of globalisation, has been sustained by a whole raft of international institutions set up after the Second World War, including the UN, UNESCO, the OECD, the Council of Europe and the European Union. One might add to this list the G8 and the WTO. English was relentlessly promoted as a vehicle of cultural influence by the British Council. The Council, International House and the RSA worked assiduously to establish English Language Teaching as a profession, aided and abetted by the major ELT publishers and examinations boards, with TOEFL and TOEIC achieving gateway status for would-be university entrants. This coalition created a veritable ELT industry worth millions of dollars worldwide. Arguably a key component in globalisation, the ELT industry has played its part in sustaining an international system that promotes a form of dollar diplomacy worldwide. It is impossible to disassociate the ELT industry from the full extent of what contemporary globalisation is all about. By this point I would expect many readers either to disagree with the main contentions in this article, or to feel distinctly uncomfortable. Indeed, readers’ consciences may be suffering from the assault implied by the claim that ELT is as much a cog in the what Ritzer terms the ‘McDonaldization process’ as the famed Golden Arches. However, relief is at hand, as well as a final conclusion which suggests that in any case it won’t be long before events dictate that many of us should find another job anyway. The responsibilities of ELT practitioners Kushner argues that the major crime of the ELT industry is not so much the contribution it makes to globalisation, but the implication that there is a standard English that is both deterritorialised and acultural. On the contrary, any standardisation should be resisted. Instead, we should recognise that there are many Englishes, and that English should be taught with a focus on local needs and local identities. Not only that, but ELT practitioners should actively promote multilingualism and multiple identities. A starting point, I would argue, is that native English teachers have a responsibility to learn the local language wherever they work. To do so is to recognise linguistic equality and I also think that it represents the single most important prerequisite to gaining access to understanding the culture in which one is working. Tospend years in Japan without learning Japanese strikes me as not only bizarre but vaguely disrespectful, if not insulting. Of course one feature of the spread of English is that there are more nonnative teachers of English than native speakers teaching English, many of them better qualified and more experienced than their English nativespeaker counterparts. However, teachers who are native speakers reportedly earn appreciably more in China than do their Chinese colleagues. This is regrettable since it is surely the case that non-native speakers bring particular attributes that make them in many ways better teachers. They have knowledge of the local language and culture, and of students’ needs, preferences, problems and aspirations that few native-speaker teachers will be able to match. Furthermore, non-native speakers may be better able to promote the diversity which is so important. This is because they are far less likely to carry the assumptions typical of the historically dominant cultures where English is the native language. ELT should find synergy with a wider global education agenda which seeks to promote intercultural understanding, multiculturalism, diversity and respect for individual rights, opinions, beliefs and identities. In some cases there may be specific reasons why some issues remain off-limits, and all of us might ponder the extent to which our convictions might be compromised in particular situations. As a highly politicised educator working in the relative comfort of a UK university, I hope I do not underestimate the difficulties others may face in particular contexts. On the other hand, one might ask in whose interests we are working if the list of issues incorporated under what we term ‘global issues’ contains too many ‘off-limits’ items. I may be overly idealist, but I tend to think that issues covered by the UN Convention on Human Rights should rarely, if at all, be subject to censorship. ELT – the future? The rapid spread of English throughout Europe may have profound implications for the ELT industry. The need for private-sector provision will probably shrink as speakers benefit from the ever more widespread and effective provision from conventional state schooling. Opportunities for travel, English language media and access to the internet will increase. A generation of Europeans is emerging that already has a good functional command of the language. Most reasonably welleducated Europeans will know English. Bilingualism or even trilingualism is, after all, far more common in continental Europe than among the shamefully monolingual British. Crystal has also written about the emergent code he calls ‘Netspeak’ – a form of English that is primarily a written language but has been pulled some way in the direction of speech. It is informal and creative and changing rapidly, and demonstrates an intriguing combination of the spoken, written and the electronic. It seems likely that this innovation will also impact on other Englishes and on EFL (or the need for EFL) in particular. Finally, the question of the future shape of the global economy also raises other interesting possibilities. One is that we should all be learning Mandarin Chinese. What of the prospect that a variety of Mandarin as a Foreign Language will in a few decades occupy as powerful a position internationally as English does now? It is not beyond the bounds of possibility.
A version of this article was presented at the IATEFL Teacher Development and Global Issues SIGs Conference at the University of Sussex on 11 March 2006. The author would like to acknowledge the contributions of Yang Guo, Jinhui Wang and Rachel Wicaksono. Simon Sweeney is Head of Programme for the MA in International Studies at York St John University, UK. He also teaches Development Education at the University of York. He is the author of numerous books, including English for Business Communication (CUP), English365 (with Bob Dignen and Steve Flinders, CUP) and Europe, the State and Globalisation (Longman).
Search 
