I hope @no-passaran doesnāt mind me going on a sort of tangent here, but the fact English is a lingua franca is, like it or not, permeated by features of linguistic imperialism.
Native English speakers are used to having the world, and by extension all non native speakers, accommodate to their language. If someone doesnāt know English then said person is uneducated, isnāt wordly, is not qualified enough. If a person doesnāt pronounce English like a native, theyāre pronouncing it wrong. Tourists are expected to speak perfect English and be proficient in it to avoid any inconvenience to native English speakers when travelling abroad to English speaking countries (USA and UK particularly, yet interestingly enough we are demanded to speak in English when these people visit our countries). These are all mindsets and situations that exist and are part of the broader context, in which English does operate on linguistic imperialism grounds on a global scale; Iām going to quote Phillipson really quickly:
Linguicism: the ideologies and structures which are used to legitimate, effectuate and reproduce an unequal division of power and resources (both material and non-material) between groups which are defined on the basis of their language (i.e., of their mother tongue). This condition is best seen within the broader context of linguistic imperialism - an essential constituent of imperialism as a global phenomenon involving structural relations between rich and poor countries in a world characterized by inequality and injustice.
Language expansion is considered an essential part of a core countryās policy of extending its power and influence in order to achieve its imperialistic strategies. Phillipson holds that the legitimization of English linguistic expansion has been based on two notions: ethnocentricity and educational policy, with āethnocentricityā being the āpractice of judging other cultures by standards of it own.ā These two practices have been used to impose a distinction between languages. It has also been a way to promote the notion of the assumed inferiority of secondary languages with respect to the norms determined by the dominant culture.
Phillipson takes this notion one step further with ethnocentricity transformed into that of āanglocentricityā with the consequence that the dominance of English is justified in terms of such oppositions as superiority/inferiority, civilization/backwardness, progress/regress, the first element of which is constantly attributed to the dominant English language.
According to Phillipson education serves the imperial center by having three functions: ideological, economic and repressive. The ideological function serves as a channel for transmitting social and cultural values. In this role English is regarded as a āgateway for better communication, better education and higher standards of living.ā The second function ā economic ā legitimizes English as a means of qualifying people to contribute to their nation and operate technology that the language provides access to. The third function ā repression ā serves to dominate languages.
Linguistic imperialism calls attention to the potential consequences of English teaching worldwide when center country ideologies are embedded in instruction, having the effect of legitimizing colonial or establishment power and resources, and of āreconstituting cultural inequalities between English and other languages.ā
[Cited and paraphrased from
-Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford. Oxford University Press. -Phillipson, R. 1988. Linguicism: structures and ideologies in linguistic imperialism. In J. Cummins and T. Skutnabb-Kangas (eds.), Minority Education: From Shame to Struggle. Avon: Multilingual Matters.]
Itāsā¦ interesting, for the lack of a better word, how non native English speakers must even accommodate to native English speakers, when in actuality non native English speakers far surpass natives by several millions and, if anything, it should be them who ought to change, not us.
English becomes our second/third/etc language, we use it with several degrees of proficiency, being affected all the time by our L1, or all the other languages that we might know, we are constantly building on our current interlanguage and gaining a better grasp on how to operate with English. When we talk or chat with other NNE speakers with whom we donāt share a language, we make ourselves understood, we manage to sort any misgiving in communication, if we make a mistake we re-phrase, re-arrange, express things in another way. We are communicating, we still get our messages across despite some slips of the tongue, little mistakes or even a few errors here and there.
We are able to engage, through the use of English, in cross-cultural exchanges, in cross-linguistic exchanges that are allowed by using English as a lingua franca. We are making the language ours, weāre reclaiming the language that for so long was used to shush us down and weāre using it as an asset, weāre using it as a weapon, weāre using it so our voices cannot be silenced any more.
Our messages do get across, they can be understood. When native English speakers claim our Englishes arenāt clear, or we arenāt making any sense, they are really not making the extra effort. In short, many are uncapable of cross-linguistic and cross-cultural exchanges and communication. Itās easier to say we donāt make sense, and by extension snuffing us out, than paying attention to what we are saying.
And we donāt only have to defend our languages and our cultures in a globalised world (in which the normalised culture is that of the center), but we also have to use English as a tool for doing it.
And we should be allowed to express ourselves, exist online without having to constantly accommodate to native English speakers. Because no matter how good our English is, how proficient we are, someone is always going to argue we arenāt good enough, that we arenāt trying hard enough.
tangentwithtanner
romaincrisis
germansingergirl
yousharknotpass
kianamaiart
gracieabrams
discoholicmusic
