|
Linguistic imperialism, or language imperialism, refers to "the transfer of a dominant language to other people". The transfer is essentially a demonstration of power—traditionally, military power but also, in the modern world, economic power—and aspects of the dominant culture are usually transferred along with the language."〔Gerald Knowles, ''Encyclopædia Britannica''.〕 Since the early 1990s, linguistic imperialism has attracted attention among scholars of applied linguistics. In particular, Robert Phillipson's 1992 book, ''Linguistic Imperialism'', has led to considerable debate about its merits and shortcomings. Phillipson found denunciations of linguistic imperialism that dated back to Nazi critiques of the British Council, and to Soviet analyses of English as the language of world capitalism and world domination.〔Phillipson, Robert (1992), p36.〕 As language is part of culture, linguistic imperialism is often manifested in the context of cultural imperialism. ==English== Phillipson defines English linguistic imperialism as Phillipson's theory supports the historic spread of English as an international language and that language's continued dominance, particularly in postcolonial settings such as India, Pakistan, Uganda, Zimbabwe, etc., but also increasingly in "neo-colonial" settings such as continental Europe. His theory draws mainly on Johan Galtung's imperialism theory, Antonio Gramsci's social theory, and in particular on his notion of cultural hegemony. A central theme of Phillipson's theory is the complex hegemonic processes which, he asserts, continue to sustain the pre-eminence of English in the world today. His book analyzes the British Council's use of rhetoric to promote English, and discusses key tenets of English applied linguistics and English-language-teaching methodology. These tenets hold that: * English is best taught monolingually ("the monolingual fallacy"); * the ideal teacher is a native speaker ("the native-speaker fallacy"); * the earlier English is taught, the better the results ("the early-start fallacy"); * the more English is taught, the better the results ("the maximum-exposure fallacy"); * if other languages are used much, standards of English will drop ("the subtractive fallacy"). According to Phillipson, those who promote English—organizations such as the British Council, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and individuals such as operators of English-language schools—use three types of argument: * ''Intrinsic'' arguments describe the English language as providential, rich, noble and interesting. Such arguments tend to assert what English ''is'' and what other languages ''are not''. * ''Extrinsic'' arguments point out that English is well-established: that it has many speakers, and that there are trained teachers and a wealth of teaching material. * ''Functional'' arguments emphasize the usefulness of English as a gateway to the world. Other arguments for English are * its economic utility: it enables people to operate technology; * its ideological function: it stands for modernity; * its status as symbol for material advance and efficiency. Another theme in Phillipson's work is "linguicism"—the species of prejudice that leads to endangered languages becoming extinct or losing their local eminence due to the rise and competing prominence of English. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Linguistic imperialism」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|