Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mohammad Aliakbari
Ilam University - Iran
maliakbari@hotmail.com
Abstract
In response to the assumptions of linguistic imperialism and cultural
homogeneity, especially explained and reacted to in Phillipson (1992), the
present article raises ten contradictory arguments, which put the native
speakers hegemony in international uses of English under question. Advocating
cultural awareness, and intercultural competence, this article calls for the
interlocutors mutual appreciation and cooperation of cultures to strengthen
international relationships. Finally through an attempt to specify the problems
with the 'native speakers dependency view, the article proposes linguistic
democracy as the alternative paradigm and elaborates on recognition of cultural
diversity in ELT.
Introduction
With respect to culture, some sense of powerlessness and inferiority has
been thought of on the part of the language learners, which implies their
dependability to native speakers (Valdes 1986; Phillipson 1992). This position is
most radically articulated in Philipson (1992) as he considers that the relationship
between the native English speaking community and the foreign or second
language learning countries represents a sort of core-periphery connection. "The
tenets of ELT have ideological and structural consequences. They serve to
This paper was prepared when the author was a visiting scholar at the Center for Applied Linguistics
and Languages at Griffith University, Australia during 2001-2002 academic year.
2
strengthen the hold of the centre over the periphery (Phillipson 1992: 192).
Bisong (1995) reviews the main thread of Phillipsons explanation of linguistic
imperialism as follows. The linguistic relation between the center and periphery
has been and continues to be one of dominant and dominated languages. English,
the author maintains, was originally imposed on a number of countries in the
periphery and has through deliberate contrivance, successfully displaced, or
replaced some of the indigenous languages of these countries. The dominance of
English has also resulted in the imposition of the Anglo-Saxon Judeo-Christian
culture that goes with it so that indigenous cultures have been undervalued and
marginalised (Bisong 1995: 123). Though Phillipson reacted to the idea in his
own terms, this article also intends to highlight ten major problems with what has
long been taken for granted by the advocates or the followers of such views. Yet,
it is important to be clear that the upcoming position and discussions deal
primarily with the English that is used in an international context. And the
interactions between English native speakers are deliberately excluded from the
arguments that follow.
dissatisfaction with the terms 'native speaker' and 'mother tongue'. The latter
seems more dissatisfied since he complains the whole mystique of the native
speaker and the mother tongue should probably be quietly dropped from the
linguists set of professional myths about language (Rampton 1990: 97).
Generally speaking, the concept of 'native speaker', as it is used in the field,
appears abstract, subjective, unrealistic and simplistic and attempts to undermine
or minimise the differences among native speakers does not change the issue. It
is abstract because it implies an idealised native speaker with perfect mastery of
English. It is unrealistic in that it ignores the linguistic and cultural heterogeneity
of native speaker communities. What we are witnessing is a collection of native
speaker varieties not a single 'native speaker pattern'. It is subjective because in
undermining the differences it creates an imaginary perception of the concept.
More importantly, it is simplistic since it translates the growing tendency to learn
English as a wish to be integrated to the native speaking communities.
when he notes, "the majority of those who are to the language born speak
nonstandard English and have themselves to be instructed in the standard at
school" (p.397).
suggest that native speakers also need practice and training for comprehending
English internationally. Thus, they consider the users comprehensibility in
English in the international setting as an outcome of active exposure to both
native and non-native speech. They also affirm that the assumption that
nonnative students of English will be able to comprehend fluent nonnative
speakers if they understand native speakers is clearly not correct. They seem to
need exposure to both native and non-native varieties in order to improve
understanding in communication (Smith and Bisazza 1982: 67). Comprehension
in international situations is actually the result of the familiarity with, and
understanding of, variant speakers. This is why they suggest that a true
evaluation of ones English comprehensibility should be based on the judgement
of both native and nonnative speakers of the language (ibid.: 59).
between the two does not specify a constraint on the categories of the two sides.
This position is eloquently expressed in Smith (1981) when she notes, language
and culture may be inextricably tied together but no one language is inextricably
tied to any one culture and no one needs to become more like native speakers in
order to use English well(p. 10).
Discussion
members of the world community, when using English, to become more like
native speakers in their life style. As the native as well as nonnative speakers
need for training in using English internationally has already been stressed
(Smith and Bisazza 1982), there is no room for cultural or linguistic chauvinism
of native speakers in international interactions.
one hand and the attempt to develop intercultural competence on the other, can
lead to more successful and effective communications. This is exactly what is
meant by linguistic democracy, the discussion of which makes up the final
section of the article.
'core' minority. In this system all speakers of English, native or otherwise, have
the right to remain faithful to their original culture. In other words, the global
attraction to learning English as an international language is not interpreted as the
learners undervaluing of their native language or culture. Rather, it is considered
as mans struggle for mutual understanding in the presence of diversity. Thus, the
ultimate destination is not linguistic and cultural homogeneity but the
appreciation of linguistic and cultural diversity as well as tolerance. Accordingly,
with no intention to undermine the value of the cultures of various native
speaking communities, the final suggestion is a call for decentring culture in
English language teaching enterprise away from the authority of the imaginary,
unreal 'native speaker'.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Professor David Ingram, director of the Centre for Applied
Linguistics and Languages in Griffith University, Dr. Shirley ONeill and Elaine Wylie,
Senior Research Fellows, for their valuable comments on the article.
References
Alptekin, C. & Alptekin, M. 1984. The question of culture: EFL teaching in
Bisong, J. 1995. Language choice and cultural imperialism. ELT Journal. Vol.
49/2, 129-132.
Blackwell Publishers.
Grice, H. P. 1975. "Logic and conversation". In Cole, P. & Morgan, J.P. (Eds.)
Press.
7.
Macmillan.
15
32, No. 2.
EIL.html.
377-389.