This document discusses the relationship between English language teaching (ELT) and cultural imperialism. It argues that promoting certain prestigious varieties of English over others can perpetuate Anglo-American dominance and negatively impact learners' cultural integrity. However, positioning English as an international language (EIL) that belongs equally to all its speakers may help address this issue. The document also examines how insistence on near-native proficiency and culture-specific teaching methods can impose foreign cultural norms and undermine learners' own identities and cultural diversity more broadly.

1. Linguistic imperialism, cultural
integrity, and EIL
Marko Modiano
Those who view the spread of English as linguistic imperialism question the
English language teaching and learning enterprise because, from their point of
view, it compromises the cultural integrity of the non-native speaker. In this
paper I argue that while linguistic imperialism is certainly real, and demands
to be addressed, one possible way for the language instructor to come to terms
with the cultural imposition of English language learning is to utilize ELT
practices which position and define English as an international language (EIL).
In my view, the alternative, promoting so-called ‘prestige’ varieties, positions
the practitioner as a purveyor of Anglo-American hegemony, and perpetuates
the negative impact which foreign language learning can have on the cultural
integrity of the learner.
ELT practices and In an exchange of views on the role of the language instructor, Kanavillil
the danger of Anglo- Rajagopalan and A. Suresh Canagarajah offer stimulating insights into
American hegemony the implications of English language teaching as a function of linguistic
neo-colonialism (see Canagarajah 1999; Rajagopalan 1999). The latter,
who is in opposition to the basic tenets of Robert Phillipson’s theory of
linguistic imperialism (Phillipson 1992), voices concern over how such
theories impact negatively on the classroom teacher. He states that ‘The
concerted rhetoric currently being orchestrated against the pretensions
of English . . . can understandably lead to an increasing unease and a
nagging guilt complex among those who are involved . . . in the
enterprise of spreading the English language’ (1999: 200). Rajagopalan
sees no reason why English instructors should feel guilt. There is
convincing evidence, however, that foreign language learning can have
potentially adverse effects on the cultures and languages of the learner.
For this reason, there is a need to gain a better understanding of those
aspects of the ELT practitioner’s behaviour which can be perceived as
furthering the forces of linguistic imperialism.
Imperialism in When a practitioner explains to students that one variety is superior to
practice others, as is the case when proponents of AmE or BrE, for example, instil
Exclusion in the minds of students the idea that other varieties are less valued, such
practices interject into the ELT activity systems of exclusion which
marginalize speakers of other varieties. On more subliminal levels, when
an instructor presents vocabulary in the classroom which is clearly based
ELT Journal Volume 55/4 October 2001 © Oxford University Press 339

2. on one variety, such as the teaching of AmE or BrE lexis, without
providing students with equivalents from other varieties, this activity
presupposes that such lexical registers are more useful in comparison to
other lexical domains. Thus, in practice, it establishes a view of the
language which, because it is culture-specific, presents English as the
property of a specified faction of the native-speaker contingency. In
addition, students learning English where culture-specific educational
norms are emphasized become coerced into conforming to a nation-state
centred view, as opposed to an international frame of reference.
Near-native Insisting on near-native proficiency in the ELT context is an act of
proficiency imposition for those students who do not want to learn English with
integration motivation. For learners who primarily want to acquire the
language because it is a useful cross-cultural communicative tool,
pressure to attain near-native proficiency may result in establishing them
as auxiliary members of the culture which is represented by the
prescriptive educational standard, something not in harmony with their
own self-image. For these students, the language is not presented as a
lingua franca primarily designed to provide them with access to the
global village, but is instead an avenue into cultural indoctrination.
Thus, when discussing what ELT practitioners should do to quell the
accusation that they are agents working for the domination of the
cultures which they represent, or which they identify with, it is clear that
a macro approach to English is required. A multiplicity of teaching
practices, and a view of the language as belonging to a broad range of
peoples and cultures, is the best that language instructors can do, in
institutionalized teaching and learning settings, to promote cultural
equality. What happens outside the instruction hall, the exposure which
students have to other input which is also an aspect of linguistic
imperialism, is beyond the language instructor’s control, and so cannot
be associated with ELT activities.
Undermining cultural Institutionalized English language learning based on culture-specific
diversity prescriptive norms, and supported by exposure to the language in a wide
spectrum of activities, comprises a programme which can be perceived
as being what Phillipson calls ‘an imperialist structure of exploitation of
one society or collectivity by another’ (1992: 55). Such positioning
supports a belief that the promotion of the English language undermines
cultural diversity. English virtually Anglo-Americanizes the non-native
speaker. Because English is such a dominant force in world affairs (and
the bulwark of Western ideology), there is a danger that its spread dilutes
(and ‘corrupts’) the distinguishing characteristics of other languages and
cultures.
Some sociolinguists perceive this process as linguistic imperialism,
pointing out that government agencies and private enterprises, primarily
in the UK and the US, export educational materials and operate language
schools as a way to extend their ‘sphere of influence’. Braj Kachru
proposes that one way to safeguard the cultural integrity of the non-
native speaker is to promote those indigenized varieties of English which
are established forms of intranational communication (see Kachru
340 Marko Modiano

3. 1982). For Europe, however, where the ideology of integration
motivation, near-native proficiency, and educational standards based on
‘prestige’ varieties is accepted and practised, the impositions of Anglo-
Americanization are only beginning to be discussed. One hears of
‘McDonaldization’. Nevertheless, European integration, and the use of
English as the unofficial language for European affairs, is forcing EU
citizens to come to terms with Anglo-American ‘linguistic imperialism’.
The political It is apparent that opposition to the spread of the tongue on the basis of
dimension the alleged ‘imperialistic’ function of English language learning is rooted
in specific political orientations. For the left-wing thinker, for example,
the notion of English as a global language could be found questionable
because oppressive capitalist values flourish in those cultures which are
defined as English speaking. One remedy, they argue, can be found in
the promotion of a multitude of international tongues. This would
quell the force behind the current scramble for acquiring English, and
dilute the impact which Anglo-American forces have on the non-native
speaker’s cultural and linguistic integrity.
A futurology of David Graddol (1997) is doubtful not only of the ability of the tongue to
English continue to maintain its position as the world’s lingua franca, but also of
the native-speakers’ ability to maintain their position as ‘representatives
of the tongue’. He contends that there is a ‘growing assertiveness’ among
‘countries adopting English as a second language that English is now
their language, through which they can express their own values and
identities, create their own intellectual property and export goods and
services to other countries’ (ibid.: 3). The same can be said of foreign-
language speakers. In a critique of Kachru’s ‘inner, outer, and expanding
circles’ model, which Graddol believes ‘will not be the most useful for
describing English usage in the next century’ because ‘it locates the
‘native speakers’ and native-speaking countries at the centre of the global
use of English, and, by implication, the sources of models of correctness’
(ibid.: 10), Graddol instead suggests that the ‘centre of gravity’ is shifting
to the L2 speaker. In political terms, it is evident that British Council
ideologues are pursuing this liberal line of reasoning partly because it is
the logical conclusion to draw, but also because such strategic
positioning promises the larger market share for the British Council in
the new era.
International We must keep in mind that acquiring English is something difficult to
communication avoid. English is now a prerequisite for participation in a vast number of
activities. The global village is being constructed in the English language,
as are the information highways. Access to findings in science and
technology is made through English, and scientists who want to partake
in the discussions which are currently taking place internationally must
have a command of the tongue. Moreover, the entertainment field, as
well as the arts, are moving steadily toward a realm where English is a
requirement for participation. In industrial, financial, and diplomatic
arenas, English is also making gains. Individuals who desire or need to
participate in the international movement will be rendered incapable of
doing so without learning English.
Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL 341

4. Who experiences It is this property of English, the necessity of learning the language,
globalization? which so profoundly challenges those opposed to the spread of the
tongue. Pennycook questions the very foundation of ‘English as an
International Language’ ideologies, in asking whether the assumption
that ‘the world’, ‘global’, or ‘international’ are unproblematic constructs’
(1994: 38). His answer is that they are not positivistic for a large number
of people. Pennycook suggests that while a privileged few enjoy the
benefits of globalization, many more suffer as a consequence. It is clear
here that Pennycook, like Phillipson, wants to superimpose the Marxist
maxim of ‘exploiter’ and ‘exploited’ onto linguistic scenarios in which
both ‘advantaged’ and ‘disadvantaged’ players participate. Conversely,
John Honey, the radical defender of ‘standard English’, in calling for the
promotion of a prescriptive educational standard, insists that it is
through a mastery of standard English that the ‘disenfranchized’ are
given an opportunity to partake in the discourses which will lead them
‘forward’ (Honey 1997). For Honey, to be without a command of an
educated form of English is to be denied the tools which are required to
lift oneself up, so to speak, and get on in the world. Thus, to those on the
left English is exploitative, while those in the conservative camp insist
that the ‘disenfranchized’ must conform to specified ‘standards’ in order
to acquire ‘wealth’. Regardless of what position ELT practitioners take in
this debate, the necessity of learning English will continue to be a
concern for an increasing number of people.
English has a mind One could say that in terms of linguistic politics, Pennycook and Honey
of its own are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Each has a conviction that their
particular ideology has functional value in language planning. It is
becoming increasingly clear, however, that the spread of English (and the
linguistic behaviour of the non-native speaker) is no longer solely in the
hands of the educators or ideologues who perceive themselves as the
engineers of language learning. Instead, with globalization, the English
language is making inroads into the consciousness of non-native English
speakers in a manner which is securely cut off from the influences of
education authorities. Information technology is introducing new
avenues for the English language to take as it continues to colonize the
hearts and minds of millions of non-native speakers. While Pennycook’s
animosity to this spread will have little bearing on its progress, the call
for the promotion of a culture specific ‘Standard English’ is equally
doomed to fail (see Modiano 1999b).
New properties of The increasing use of English among non-native speakers has radically
the lingua franca changed the way in which we perceive this language’s international
and global culture function. Now, as the lingua franca, it is public property, and has taken
on new characteristics. A global culture is emerging wherein cultural
artefacts are being created in the English language by non-native
speakers. In Europe and elsewhere it is becoming commonplace to write
in English without first composing texts in a native tongue. Swedish
musicians, for example, have for some time produced popular songs in
the English language which have been successful internationally (from
ABBA to Ace of Base). Thus, access to global markets is made through the
creation of cultural artefacts in the English language. The artefact itself is
342 Marko Modiano

5. not necessarily steeped in the distinctiveness of a defined and unique
culture, but is instead a marker of world culture. Across the board, from
film to music to literature, there is an increasing number of cultural
artefacts which are not produced in the native tongue of the artists
responsible for the expression.
Global culture in This movement, along with widespread exposure, learning, and use of
English English, profoundly impacts on those cultures which up to now have
retained distinctive identities. Here it is clear that while historically the
spread of English was integrated into the processes of colonization under
the auspices of Great Britain, and as such furthered the forces of British
cultural hegemony, the ‘imposition’ of English no longer stems from
such clearly defined epicentres (although America and Britain are major
factors). Instead, what can be perceived as a cultural imposition may very
well have its origins in any number of places. The USA and the UK do
not hold monopolies on what are perceived to be ‘international’ cultural
phenomena marketed in English.
The spirit of While globalization can be perceived as an active agent in the processes
internationalism which contribute to a diminishing of cultural diversity, it can conversely
be celebrated as emblematic of a new spirit of unity between diverse
peoples and nations. Those who discredit the spread of English are
nevertheless forced to accept the fact that the international movement
requires a language of wider communication. It is also the case that there
is a need to support minority languages and cultures. Like all ‘cultural
artefacts’, languages give testimony to the unique heritage of
humankind. Thus, one can say that the globalization movement is
attempting a perilous balancing act. While on the one hand there is a call
for a language of wider communication, for a common space, we have on
the other hand a sincere desire to preserve cultural diversity. These two
movements, which are contradictory, are bound to result in conflict and
irresolution.
The downside of the A number of cultures have lost a distinct identity originating from an
spread of English ancestral language as a result of linguistic imperialism. The British Isles,
for example, have witnessed the spread of English across Scotland and
Ireland, effectively reducing the Celtic languages thriving there to little
more, in most places, than a curiosity. Traditional second language
usage, (for example, Swedish in Finland) is also declining because of
increased use of English. Moreover, in some people’s opinion, Western
European languages such as French and German, are ‘suffering’ from
Anglo-Americanization. Nevertheless, the similarity in values, social
organisation, religious orientation, etc., has made the spread of English
less problematic for Europe.
In the non-Western world, however, Western languages and modes of
thinking are a greater imposition. Exploitation is far more relevant there.
At the same time, access to the information highways and to the
economic developments made possible through co-operation with the
West can have a beneficial impact on these cultures.
Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL 343

6. Cultural integration It appears that the forecast of the globalization process continuing and
vs. linguistic diversity? gathering momentum in the coming decades is a reliable one. This
movement, which requires, as a precondition for success, a common
tongue, has locked on to English and is now moving toward the second
stage of development. That is to say, while the lingua franca was initially
intended to bring people together, it is now being deployed in the
creation of cultural artefacts which are representative of global culture. It
is this movement of cultural integration, together with the social and
economic necessities of knowing English, which will secure the English
language as the platform upon which globalization will come into being.
Graddol has made it clear that there is a possibility of English sharing
global linguistic hegemony with Spanish and Chinese (1997: 3).
However, while they may appear logical, such scenarios are essentially
irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The momentum which English has
amassed at this point in history is so great that there is every reason to
assume that as a lingua franca English will continue to dictate protocol
throughout the better part of this century. Nevertheless, because of the
need to conserve linguistic diversity, it is reasonable that language
planners should work toward demoting English and promoting the
learning of other languages. Such a programme is currently being
carried out in the EU. At the same time, however, improved English
proficiency among the citizens of the EU can be observed. Programmes
aimed at altering the movement toward increasing knowledge of English
are up against a formidable force, and it is inconceivable that enough
educational planning could be carried out to curtail the impact of the
spread of English on the unique identity of a multitude of European
cultures.
What role will a If then, as procurers of the English language, we are committed to
global educational utilizing language teaching and learning practices which are supportive
standard play? of cultural diversity, we find ourselves faced with serious challenges. This
is because it is impossible to learn a foreign language without being
influenced ideologically, politically, culturally, etc. The teaching and
learning of a geographically, politically, and culturally ‘neutral’ form of
English, which is perceived as a language of wider communication and
not as the possession of native speakers, is one of the few options we
have at hand if we want to continue to promote English language
learning while at the same time attempting to somehow ‘neutralize’ the
impact which the spread of English has on the cultural integrity of the
learner (see Modiano 1999a). This is because the use of a ‘core-based
English’, as opposed to a variety based on the nation state, impacts less
negatively on the culture and language(s) of the non-native speaker
(there is less need to mimic specific behaviour, to assume multi-
identities, to pay lip-service to foreign value systems, etc.). Instead,
English, as an international language, is simply a utilitarian
communicative tool, one which allows the non-native user to retain, to
the greatest degree possible, their distinctive cultural characteristics.
A phonology for EIL In an effort to construct a taxonomy for EIL, Jennifer Jenkins (2000)
attempts to reconsider ‘the problems of mutual phonological
intelligibility . . . with the aim of facilitating the use of EIL’ (2000: 2).
344 Marko Modiano

7. Jenkins’ perceptions of her findings, situated in a belief that the cultural
orientation of English, for the L2 speaker, must by definition be lingua
franca-orientated, as opposed to being based on a ‘prestigious’ L1 variety,
leads her to contend that a core EIL phonology is more ‘cross-culturally
democratic’ (ibid.: 4). Here we see how an EIL perspective not only
challenges traditional notions of educational standards, and teaching and
learning practices, but more importantly positions ELT as an enterprise
primarily dedicated to the acquisition of inter-cultural communicative
skills.
An ecology of It is of paramount importance that educators investigate strategies which
language have the greatest likelihood of supporting the cultural integrity of those
who are threatened by the spread of English. It is also in the best interest
of the international community to begin implementing programmes
which support the establishment of an international standard for English
teaching and learning. An ecology of language and culture, like the
movement for an ecology of the environment, will emerge as one of the
primary challenges in our times. Here, linguistic ecology does not
necessarily mean protecting languages from ‘impurities’, or influence
from other languages, but is indicative of a desire to safeguard languages
from becoming extinct. Never before in history has the multitude of
human languages been more threatened by the spread of one specific
tongue. We have been witnessing the expansion of this language for
centuries, and many of us have dedicated our professional lives to its
promotion. Our responsibility now must be to both embrace the beast
and at the same time to tame it, to allow the language to act as the
interface for the global network, while at the same time taking action to
protect minority tongues and cultures from extinction.
In the rush to participate in the global movement, the spread of English
can potentially wreak havoc on any number of languages and cultures.
While it is capable of ushering in the ‘beneficial’ fruits of technology and
of so-called ‘Western advances’, the English language, like other
European languages with a colonialist legacy, is a dangerous bedfellow.
New teaching and learning strategies can, to some extent, support non-
native speakers in their efforts to both participate in the global movement
and at the same time preserve their unique identities. The ELT
practitioner can be actively involved in this ‘ecology of language’
mindset, and attempt to implement language teaching and learning
practices which support the cultural and linguistic integrity of the non-
native speaker, or, alternatively, the practitioner can promote a nation-
state based prescriptive norm, and in the process actively work towards a
diminishing of cultural diversity. Hopefully, people responsible for
language planning will take a hard look at some of the traditional
practices which position the educational standard for English as being
based on an American or British variety (or some other proposed
‘prestige’ nation-state, culture-specific variety), and instead come to an
understanding that as a lingua franca, an international view of the
language is more conducive to the conservation of cultural pluralism.
Revised version received April 2000
Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL 345

8. References
Canagarajah, A. S. 1999. ‘On EFL teachers,
awareness, and agency’. ELT Journal 53/3: 207–14.
Graddol, D. 1997. The Future of English? London:
British Council.
Honey, J. 1997. Language is Power: the Story of
Standard English and its Enemies. London: Faber
and Faber.
Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an
International Language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Kachru, B. (ed.) 1982. The Other Tongue: English
Across Cultures. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press.
Modiano, M. 1999a. ‘International English in the
global village’. English Today 58/15: 14–19.
Modiano, M. 1999b. ‘Standard English(es) and
educational practices for the world’s lingua
franca’. English Today 60/15: 3–13.
Pennycook, A. 1994. The Cultural Politics of English
as an International Language. Harlow: Longman.
Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Rajagopalan, K. 1999. ‘Of EFL teachers,
conscience, and cowardice’. ELT Journal: 53/3:
200–6.
The author
Marko Modiano is Senior Lecturer in English at
Gavie University, Sweden. He holds a PhD in
British Literature from Uppsala University,
Sweden, and a BA in English from San Francisco
State University. His research interests include
language policy issues for the EU, educational
standards, language and learning practices,
linguistic imperialism and cultural pluralism,
Mid-Atlantic English, and English as an
International Language. He is the author of A Mid-
Atlantic Handbook (1996), and has published
articles in World Englishes and English Today, as
well as in various international journals and
volumes of proceedings.
Email: mmo@hig.se
346 Marko Modiano