A question for native English-speakers on this forum.

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I've been reading Linguistic Imperialism by Robert Phillipson (ISBN 780194371469), and came across a few quotes. Though I speak English fluently, I still don't identify myself as an Anglo since English isn't my mother tongue; but I'd like to know whether or not the ideas presented in these quotes are commonly shared among Anglos. I'll include the quotes below, and ask that you feel free to comment as you wish.

Of course we do not have the power we once had to impose our will but Britain's influence endures, out of all proportion to her economic and military resources. This is partly because the English language is the lingua franca of science, technology, and commerce; the demand for it is insatiable and we respond either through the education systems of "host" countries or, when the market can stand it, on a commercial basis. Our language is our greatest asset, greater than Borth Sea Oil, and the supply is inexhaustible; furthermore, while we do not have a monopoly, our particular brand remains highly sought after. I am glad to say that those who guide the fortunes of this country share my conviction in the need to invest in, and exploit to the full, this invisible, God-given asset.
(British Council Annual Report 1983-89:9, as quoted on pages 144-145 of Linguistic Imperialism)​

If and when a new language becomes really operant in an underdeveloped country, the students' world becomes restructured.​
(I.A Richards, Anglo-American Conference Report 1961:2, as quoted on page 166 of Linguistic Imperialism )​

This recognition of national independence went along with a realization that nationalistic spirit could wreak all hopes for English as a second language. Resource countries - those which have potential teaching services to offer along with what is needed to supply it - must do all they can in the interests, first and foremost, of their hosts. That was heartily agreed on. It had to be reconciled somehow with awareness that a Ministry of Education - under nationalistic pressures - may not be a good judge of a country's interests. And reconciled further, with the remembrance that, insofar as a second language becomes truly operative, the view that the mind takes will change. Firm words were said on this and on the dangers of propaganda to host and resource country as well. An important consideration here is that English, through its assimilations, has become not only the representative of contemporary English-speaking thought and feeling but a vehicle of the entire developing human tradition: the best (and worst) that has been thought and felt by man in all places and in all times. It is equally the key to the prodigious mysteries the swift ocoming years will bring upon us.​
(I.A. Richards, in an appendix to the Anglo-American Conference Report, 1961:19, as quoted on page 167 of Linguistic Imperialism)​


This gift of a common tongue is a priceless inheritance, and it may well some day become the foundation of a common citizenship. I like to think of British and Americans moving about freely over each other's wide estates with hardly a sense of being foreigners to one another. But I do not see why we should not try to spread our common language even more widely throughout the globe and, without seeking selfish advantage over any, possess ourselves of this invaluable amenity and birthright.
Some months ago I persuaded the British Cabinet to set up a committee of Ministers to study and report upon Basic English. Here you have a plan. There are others, but here you have a very carefully wrought plan for an international language capable of a very wide transaction of practical business and interchange of ideas. The whole of it is comprised in about 650 nouns and 200 verbs or other parts of speech - no more indeed than can be written on one side of a single sheet of paper.
What was my delight when, the other evening, quite unexpectedly, I heard the President of the United States suddenly speak of the merits of Basic English, and is it not a coincidence that, with all this in mind, I should arrive at Harvard, in fulfilment of the long-dated invitations to receive this degree, with which president Conant has honoured me? For Harvard has done more than any other American university to promote the extension of Basic English. The first work on Basic English was written by two Englishmen, Ivor Richards, now of Harvard, and C.K. Ogden, of Cambridge University, England, working in association.
The Harvard Commission on English Language Studies is distinguished both for its research and its practical work, particularly in introducing the use of Basic English in Latin America; and this Commission, your Commission, is now, I am told, working with secondary schools in Boston on the use of Basic English in teaching the main language to American children and in teaching it to foreigners preparing for citizenship.
Gentlemen, I make you my compliments. I do not wish to exaggerate, but you are the head-stream of what might well be a mighty fertilising and health-giving river. It would certainly be a grand convenience for us all to be able to move freely about the world - as we shall be able to do more freely than ever before as the science of the world develops - be able to move freely about the world, and be able to find everywhere a medium, albeit primitive, of intercourse and understanding. Might it not also be an advantage to many races, and an aid to the building-up of our new structure for preserving peace?
All these are great possibilities, and I say: "Let us go into this together. Let us have another Boston Tea Party about it."
Let us go forward as with other matters and other measures similar in aim and effect - let us go forward in malice to none and good will to all. Such plans offer far better prizes than taking away other people's provinces or lands or grinding them down in exploitation. The empires of the future are the empires of the mind.
(Winston Churchill in a speech at Harvard, 1943)​
 
Last edited:

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
You'll generally find the same patronizing tone in the more recent site below, suggesting that the British Government's attitude hasn't changed in the least. And if you surf the British Council website, though the wording has toned down over the decades, again the tone continues to be patronizing. Add to that that the Canadian International Development Agency, fully funded by the Canadian Government, is likewise actively involved in promoting EFL activities abroad.

Though I'm well aware that this attitude is common among many Anglos, as indicated by such unquestioned assumptions such as 'English is the world language, so deal with it', I have a hard time believing that this applies to all Anglos, but I'd like to know just how common these ideas are.

Number10.gov.uk » English - The World’s language (17 Jan 08)
 

Spade

Ace Poster
Nov 18, 2008
12,822
49
48
9
Aether Island
The trouble with English is it's the language of two successive empires. The more recent one is the American Empire, but for the life of me, I can't remember the name of the other. I'm sure I'll remember it tomorrow when I'm a little more rested!
 

Vereya

Council Member
Apr 20, 2006
2,003
54
48
Tula
If and when a new language becomes really operant in an underdeveloped country, the students' world becomes restructured.
(I.A Richards, Anglo-American Conference Report 1961:2, as quoted on page 166 of Linguistic Imperialism )​


This can apply to any language you are learning. A language is the manifestation of a nation's mentality. It reflects the way people think. So when you are learning a language, you can't help getting "into" the mentality of another nation. You can't speak fluent German, for instance, and not think like a German. You'll have to, to be able to understand the structure of the language, and to construct sentences in a correct way, and to choose the right words. So when you reach the stage when you can speak several languages fluently, without having to translate what you what to say from your native tongue first, your mentality and your world does become restructured in a way. For a while at least you begin to think like a person of another nationality. It's the natural thing.
 

VanIsle

Always thinking
Nov 12, 2008
7,046
43
48
Pretty common knowledge that English is becoming the "world" language. People coming to Canada from other non English speaking countries (as their mother tongue) have taken English in their schools. Many many students are sent to this country as young as 16 yrs. just so they can learn the language. It is taught in school in India and in Germany. Those are just two I know of for certain outside of Canada and the United States. Seems to me a universal language would be a good thing.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Pretty common knowledge that English is becoming the "world" language. People coming to Canada from other non English speaking countries (as their mother tongue) have taken English in their schools. Many many students are sent to this country as young as 16 yrs. just so they can learn the language. It is taught in school in India and in Germany. Those are just two I know of for certain outside of Canada and the United States. Seems to me a universal language would be a good thing.

I fully agree that a universal language would be a good thing, as lng as it's a universal auxiliary language and not universal first language. Owing to the level of difficulty involved in learning English, while many Hongkongese pride themselves in being bilingual, in reality they often know neither language very well, essentially becoming cultural eunuchs. I'd met a 16-year old Korean once too who had all kinds of emotional and academic problems owing to various family issues (his parents were undergoing divorce). It certainly didn't help that they had sent him to New Zealand for 4 years on his own at the age of 13 not knowing any English in their desperate attempt to give him an 'edge' in life. The result was catastrophic. When I'd met him in China when he was 16, strait from Korea, my Korean colleague had assessed his Korean level as poor (of course, you don't know your mother tongue yet when you're 13, the last time he'd studied Korean), I'd assessed his English as poor too. After all, you don't learn your second language efficiently if you don't know your mother tongue yet. And in even greater desperation, his parents decided to send him to China figuring he could learn Chinese to get an edge too.

Since he couldn't understand anything the teachers were teaching him in Australia, it turned out that all his subjects (geography, science, maths, everything) were poor. And just as he was starting to get a hang of English, he then had to sit through lessons in Chinese, again not understanding anything the teachers were teaching him.

Needless to say he lost all interest in education, he hated it. I'd met other Koreans in China in a similar albeit somewhat more favourable boat. It's pretty sad when parents place having their child learn a second language above family cohesion, emotional and academic stability!

The fact of the matter is, English is too difficult for most people, and the pressure to learn it has damaged lives (as per the example above tht I'd seen with my own eyes).
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
This can apply to any language you are learning. A language is the manifestation of a nation's mentality. It reflects the way people think. So when you are learning a language, you can't help getting "into" the mentality of another nation. You can't speak fluent German, for instance, and not think like a German. You'll have to, to be able to understand the structure of the language, and to construct sentences in a correct way, and to choose the right words. So when you reach the stage when you can speak several languages fluently, without having to translate what you what to say from your native tongue first, your mentality and your world does become restructured in a way. For a while at least you begin to think like a person of another nationality. It's the natural thing.

I fully agree as I speak a few different languages myself, sometimes making it difficult for me to understand my fellow Canadians who know only English and French. It does restructure the mind indeed.

But I think you failed to understand the context of the quote. This understanding was systematically used by the British Council, with government funding, and in collaboration with the Americans as was discussed at the Anglo-American Conference in 1961, especially through USAID, to promote English learning abroad specifically to try to influence other nations for political and economic gain for these nations. Canada engages in such international language politics too through CIDA, albeit more low key owing to the linguo-political situation within Canada's own borders.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Since it appears that no onre really read the quotes above, I'll requote some selected parts below:

Of course we do not have the power we once had to impose our will but Britain's influence endures, out of all proportion to her economic and military resources... we respond either through the education systems of "host" countries or, when the market can stand it, on a commercial basis. Our language is our greatest asset, greater than Borth Sea Oil, and the supply is inexhaustible; furthermore, while we do not have a monopoly, our particular brand remains highly sought after. I am glad to say that those who guide the fortunes of this country share my conviction in the need to invest in, and exploit to the full, this invisible, God-given asset.

(British Council Annual Report 1983-89:9, as quoted on pages 144-145 of Linguistic Imperialism)​



This recognition of national independence went along with a realization that nationalistic spirit could wreak all hopes for English as a second language. Resource countries - those which have potential teaching services to offer along with what is needed to supply it - must do all they can in the interests, first and foremost, of their hosts... It had to be reconciled somehow with awareness that a Ministry of Education - under nationalistic pressures - may not be a good judge of a country's interests. And reconciled further, with the remembrance that, insofar as a second language becomes truly operative, the view that the mind takes will change.
(I.A. Richards, in an appendix to the Anglo-American Conference Report, 1961:19, as quoted on page 167 of Linguistic Imperialism)​
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
If you read the quotes above, it's clear that the British Council and the British government's motive for promoting English is by no means altruistic. The fact that the second quote is from an Anglo-American Conference Report means that the US govenrment fully agreed with this too. And since I've witnessed CIDA engaging in EFL textbook development targetting Chinese elementary school children (and I've skimmed through the books and it's clear that the objective is to promote Caanda for long-term economic benefit to us), it's clear Canada engages in such language politics too. I remember reading one British Council report from last year (I'll keep trying to find it) making it clear that it was giving free textbooks to Russian schools to promote British cultura and rapprochement with Britain.

It's really sick that English-speaking countries, including Canada, should engage in language politics abroad in elementary school classrooms with children for crying out loud.

Just read the quotes above and then try to tell me that the objectives are altruistic. The mantra that English is the 'world language', which some governments, such as Italy's, and some organizations such as UNESCO, have officially and categorically denied on the basis of their understanding of the meaning of a world language, is clearly an excuse to promote the agendas above. They're not my words, they're from the horse's mouth.

I'm not saying France doesn't engage in similar language politics to bind otehr nations to the metropole, and it's equally sickening. But since this is an English-language forum, I'm focussing on English here.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
I don't think anyone who can communicate with someone else a half world away considers themselves to be imposing their culture or language on anyone else....

What is it you don't like ... English or imperialism?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Also, as for the question of English being a world language, if StatsCan shows that only about 85% of Canadians know English in spite of its being compulsory as a second language in secondary school at least across Canada, and that this is a self assessment (which past research in Europs indicates gives results about 10% higher than through objective test results), it's possible that the real rate is as low as 75%. So we have from 17% to 85% of Canadians knowing English, and Canada is among the seven most predominantly English-speaking countries in the world. So if the rate of knowledge is this low in Canada, how successful do you think people really are elsewhere? How do we define a world language?

It's fair to say English is more successful than most so far, but it has by no means won the war. As we can see from the Italian report, some countries are fighting back for justice. And as long as that is happening, Anglos can't claim vitory yet.

It's a shame that it's always thought of in military terms of victory.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Hmmm... I'm wondering who here actually agrees with the quotes above that English is 'a God-given asset', a 'brand', that we must invest in and exploit to the full to out own benefit.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I don't think anyone who can communicate with someone else a half world away considers themselves to be imposing their culture or language on anyone else....

What is it you don't like ... English or imperialism?

Have you not read the quotes above? Do you find them perfectly normal, acceptable? I'll quote a part for you again:

This recognition of national independence went along with a realization that nationalistic spirit could wreak all hopes for English as a second language. Resource countries - those which have potential teaching services to offer along with what is needed to supply it - must do all they can in the interests, first and foremost, of their hosts. That was heartily agreed on. It had to be reconciled somehow with awareness that a Ministry of Education - under nationalistic pressures - may not be a good judge of a country's interests. And reconciled further, with the remembrance that, insofar as a second language becomes truly operative, the view that the mind takes will change.

Do you not understand its import? It's essentially saying that if a foreign ministry of education of a 'host' country (makes it sound like a foreign virus in a body) is too blinded by 'nationalism' (Oh come on, who's the nationlist here) to see its own interests in promoting English in tehir country, then it's up to the the governments this conference represents to try to override the wishes of that ministry of education. Is that not imperialistic by definition?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Likewise, when we consider that there is no international law whatsoever recognizing English as the world language, isn't it a little imposing for English-speaking countries to proclaim it themselves?
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Have you not read the quotes above? Do you find them perfectly normal, acceptable? I'll quote a part for you again:

This recognition of national independence went along with a realization that nationalistic spirit could wreak all hopes for English as a second language. Resource countries - those which have potential teaching services to offer along with what is needed to supply it - must do all they can in the interests, first and foremost, of their hosts. That was heartily agreed on. It had to be reconciled somehow with awareness that a Ministry of Education - under nationalistic pressures - may not be a good judge of a country's interests. And reconciled further, with the remembrance that, insofar as a second language becomes truly operative, the view that the mind takes will change.

Do you not understand its import? It's essentially saying that if a foreign ministry of education of a 'host' country (makes it sound like a foreign virus in a body) is too blinded by 'nationalism' (Oh come on, who's the nationlist here) to see its own interests in promoting English in tehir country, then it's up to the the governments this conference represents to try to override the wishes of that ministry of education. Is that not imperialistic by definition?

Yes I have read your quotes. As opinions they are neither wrong nor right. What makes the language universal may well live in the fact that English just happened to be the tongue spoken in the birthplace of the industrial revolution - and it is the same language everywhere it is written and spoken.

Now ... is the English too big on your Cheerios box or what?
 
Last edited:

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Yes I have read your quotes. As opinions they are neither wrong nor right. Now ... is the English too big on your Cheerios box or what?

First off, I'm not a Quebecer, and secondly, I see Bill 101 to be just as colonialist in its intentions considering how it hurts Quebec's first nations languages.

On the other hand, let's consider the economic cost of English in the world. According to Francois Grin of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, the EU subsidized the British economy by from 17 to 18 thousand million Euros in 2005 through second language acquisition alone, in spite of the fact that the UK is the wealthiest member. So much for Robin Hood. According to Pattanayak in 2001, after over 200 years of effort, still only about 4% of Indians have a real knowledge of English. Don't you think English as an international language gives native English-speaking countries an unjust advantage in the world, in contract negotiations, air traffic, sea traffic, etc.?

Of course the same would apply with French, also a difficult language. But what I don't understand is how Canadians who pretend to be 'socially progressive' could support such injustice rather than look for more just alternatives.