The document discusses the impact of globalization and transnational communication on language policy. It examines different perspectives on the role of English, from those who see it as a threat to other languages to those who view it as an opportunity. It also analyzes models of language analysis, comparing the traditional three-level framework to a proposed four-level framework distinguishing between hyper-central, super-central, central, and peripheral languages. Finally, it explores potential levels of transnational linguistic communication, including English as a lingua franca, regional lingua francas, second languages, and alternative languages like Esperanto.

1. Transnational communication and `glocalisation'
The impact on language policy
Federico Gobbo
F.Gobbo@uva.nl
LPP2014 Colloquium: Comparing language policies at dierent levels of
governance against the back-drop of globalization,
4 Sep 2014, Calgary, Canada
1 de 25

2. English now: current perceptions

3. Apocalyptics vs. integrated
Paraphrasing Umberto Eco there are two opposite reactions to English
now: the `apocalyptics', who are intellectuals who fear that English
ruins or destroy the existance of other languages, and the `integrated'
intellectuals, who embrace the change as a world of new challenges.
3 de 25

4. Reactions to English by language policy scholars
groups apocalyptics integrated
language as identity marker neutral commodity
main issue power communication
metaphor imperialism market
conceptual frame ecolinguistics postmodernism

5. English or Englishes?
5 de 25

6. Identity and English in the Krachuvian circless
circle Inner Outer Expanding
language is native adopted pragmatic
norm providing developing dependent
sense of property belonging thirdness
6 de 25

7. Thirdness of English as a Lingua Franca
Non-native interactions are often enriched by expressions borrowed
from the other lingua-cultural backgrounds of the speakers, creating a
hybrid space, a `thirdness':
a lingua franca can also serve expressive purposes. People want
to be expressive and creative when they communicate, even in a
foreign language, and phraseology because of its imagery and its
connotative potential is a means of achieving this (Fiedler
2011:90).
7 de 25

8. A situational de

9. nition of ELF
the argument that such standard varieties as world English,
global English, or lingua Franca English are to be cultivated for
assuring intelligibility in international communication and
writing is spurious. The Inner Circle varieties are not always
mutually intelligible (Kachru Smith 2009:6).
ELF can be saved as a context-dependent
uid variety of English used
every time natives speakers are not involved. When a native speaker
comes, at any level of the communication process, all the magic of
ELF vanishes.
8 de 25

10. Metaphors of English in globalisation
the fascination of Latin { Roman and British Empires in
comparison [sic]
the Mediterranean Lingua Franca { bilateral pidgin?
Globish by J-P. Nerrier, Ogden's Basic English { revised?
9 de 25

11. Towards a `glocal' language
policy model

12. The linguistic interstices
the very technology that drives communities apart also oers
opportunities for the maintenance of linguistic and cultural ties:
if more people are drifting apart, more people are also drifting
back together. It is possible to live on one side of the world and
maintain active ties with the other. The old notion of the
single, isolated, fully self-sucient language may be fading
before a dierent model { that of the language functioning in
linguistic interstices, co-existing with other languages (Tonkin
Reagan 2003:13).
11 de 25

13. How many levels of analysis?
Usually the levels of analysis are three, e.g. Crystal (2003):
1. international: English (always);
2. national: languages well Ausbauized (see Tosco);
3. local: minority languages
12 de 25

14. Three is not enough
Calvet (2006, 1999) proposes four levels instead of three:
1. hyper-central: English;
13 de 25

15. Three is not enough
Calvet (2006, 1999) proposes four levels instead of three:
1. hyper-central: English;
2. super-central: about 10 languages: Arabic, Chinese, French, Hindi,
Malay, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swahili;
13 de 25

16. Three is not enough
Calvet (2006, 1999) proposes four levels instead of three:
1. hyper-central: English;
2. super-central: about 10 languages: Arabic, Chinese, French, Hindi,
Malay, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swahili;
3. central: about 100 languages;
13 de 25

17. Three is not enough
Calvet (2006, 1999) proposes four levels instead of three:
1. hyper-central: English;
2. super-central: about 10 languages: Arabic, Chinese, French, Hindi,
Malay, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swahili;
3. central: about 100 languages;
4. peripherical languages: +5,000 languages;
13 de 25

18. Calvet's galaxy of languages
French Hindi Bambara Wolof
1 hyper-central English English English English
2 super-central French Hindi French French
3 central (empty) Gujarati Bambara Wolof
4 peripherical Occitan (empty) regional lang. Serere, Diola
14 de 25

19. The possible levels of transnational communication
Integrated Regional LF Migrant Alternative
1 ELF
2 e.g., francophonie
3 e.g., L2 Dutch
in Amsterdam
4 Esperanto
15 de 25

20. Thank you for your attention!
Questions? Ideas?
If not now, send them afterwards to:
F.Gobbo@uva.nl
Download and share this presentation from here:
http:/federicogobbo.name/en/2014.php
CC
BY: $n
C
Federico Gobbo 2014
16 de 25