Capital is accumulated and profitable force that transforms for reproduction and enables individuals to obtain social energy (Bourdieu 1986). Thus, patterns of capital
2.3 G LOBALIZATION AND THE R ISE OF E NGLISH
Globalization, which is hardly a new phenomenon, has altered and is continuously altering language in such a dramatic way that language under globalization has received much academic attention. The section provides a general description of globalization and the role English plays.
2.3.1 Globalization and Language
Globalization covers such a wide range of domains that it is difficult to precisely designate what globalization is. Therefore, globalization is mostly defined and comprehended in terms of conversions it has led to. Held et al. (1999) propose that globalization can be perceived as “a process (or set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions – assessed in terms of their extensity, intensity, velocity, and impact – generating transcontinental or interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction, and the exercise of power” (1999:16). Held et al. consider globalization to be processes of
“transformation” of social constructs. Scheuerman (2008) offers an elaborated perspective. “In popular discourse, globalization often functions as little more than a synonym for one or more of the following phenomena: the pursuit of classical liberal (or “free market”) policies in the world economy (“economic liberalization”), the
16
growing dominance of western (or even American) forms of political, economic, and cultural life (“Westernization” or “Americanization”), the proliferation of new information technologies (the “Internet Revolution”), as well as the notion that humanity stands at the threshold of realizing one single unified community in which major sources of social conflict have vanished (“global integration”).” Sheuerman’s definition of globalization is comprehended in terms of changes in many dimensions caused by globalization which refers to ongoing processes of transformation. As can be observed from Sheuerman’s definition, globalization is nearly equivalent to the orientation toward Western dominance in economy, politics, and culture. Yet, the seemingly unidirectional transformations under globalization do not elicit homogeneity (Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson 2010). Rather, globalization leads to multiplicity and inequality.
The increasing contact among individuals of different nationalities spotlights the issues of international and intercultural communication. Languages in globalization are evolving continuously with regards to their forms, functions, and, remarkably, values, owing to the constant contact, (Coupland 2010; Mufwene 2010).
2.3.2 English as a global Language
To fulfill the increasing demands in intercultural communication, individuals of different nationalities, cultures, and linguistic repertoires must agree upon a mutual code, a lingua franca. Theoretically, any language is capable of becoming a lingua franca, and yet the fact that English is popularly recognized as the lingua franca shows that the global status that English enjoys is a consequence of social dynamics.
The militarily powerful British Empire and its colonization left this legacy (see e.g., Crystal 2003; Mufwene 2010). Nonetheless, Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson (2010)
17
stress that English would not have maintained its global status if it were not for the economic and political strength of English-speaking countries. Together they have made English what it is today and led to the global appropriation of English.
English has become the foremost world language due to its function as a lingua franca (Mufwene 2010), which is defined by Firth (1996:240) as a ‘contact language between persons who share neither a common native tongue nor a common national culture, and for whom English is the chosen foreign language of communication.’
According to Firth, a lingua franca is a language chosen for wider communication.
Nevertheless, the phrase is criticized for its decontextualization and the implication of symmetrical communication (Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson 2010). English as a lingua franca in interlingual communication can be symmetrical, when all parties are non-natives of English, and asymmetrical when one party is native speakers of English (Ammon 2010). Though the term is neutral in describing the linguistic phenomena of adopting English for wider communication, it overgeneralizes the social complexities and imbalanced power relations among speakers.
The appropriation of English in non-Anglophone communities has made English “indigenized” with local linguistic features to fulfill communicative demands (Mufwene 2009; Ricento 2010). Consequently, the indigenization which is an ongoing process alters forms, functions, and values of English by localizing it. World
Englishes refers to different varieties of English spoken as a second or foreign
language. The term pinpoints that the majority of English speakers globally do not necessarily speak standard English, if standard English can be objectively defined.With English being spoken world-wide, Kachru (1985) labels English speakers in three concentric circles based on patterns of distribution, acquisition, and use of English. Inner Circle countries refer to those in which English is spoken by monolingual natives. In Outer Circle countries, English is bestowed official status
18
through institutional imposition. English is usually highly immersed in daily conversation in Outer Circle, and thus English is frequently indigenized with local linguistic features (Mufwene 2009; Ricento 2010). In Expanding Circle countries, English serves little functions. Additionally, the number of English users is relatively smaller compared with that in Outer Circle. Taiwan is categorized as one of the Expanding Circle countries by Kachru.
As significant as Kachru’s model is, the typology is severely attacked, for its rigidity in particular. The major criticisms against the model have been summarized in Park and Wee (2009). First, the model assumes clear-cut boundaries that neatly divide countries into three groups. Besides, the model also implicates a direct correspondence between the political history of British colonization and the contemporary sociolinguistic profile of English in a country (Bruthiaux 2003). A related criticism by Jenkins (2003) directs at the fallacy that such categorizations treat countries in each circle as homogeneous. In other words, the model overgeneralizes the heterogeneity within each circle. In addition, English appropriation globally is an ongoing process. Patterns of English distribution are also continuously converting.
The accountability of the three-circle model will be challenged (Park & Wee 2009).
Moreover, the model still labels the distribution of English at the level of nations and ignores social factors such as gender and ethnicity within them (Pennycook 2003).
Furthermore, the model focuses on the spread of standard English in more formal domains such as education and business and ignores domains of popular cultures and youth sub-cultures. According to Pennycook (2003, 2010), these domains demonstrate the appropriation of dialectal, variational, and even vernacular English. The most fundamental debate ignited by the model concerns the fact that the model reinforces the native-nonnative dichotomy and reproduces the hegemony of Inner Circle countries and the norms spoken by them. Higgins (2003) adopts Norton’s (1997)
19
theory of ownership as an alternative to the dichotomy between native speakers and non-native speakers. Though confronted with these criticisms, Kachru’s model is still very prominent in studies on world English.
2.3.3 English Learning, Social Implications, and Concerns
It has been mentioned that English has sustained its global status due to the economic strength of its speakers. English as a global language, similar to other related terms such as world Englishes, English as a world language, English as a lingua franca, describes a neutral linguistic phenomenon in which speakers adopt English in intercultural communications. However, these terms all reflect social phenomena in which power and the imbalanced distribution are involved. English and its global status alone could not account for the continuous spread of English in non-English speaking countries.
Language planning refers to institutionalized and conscious efforts to enforce language learning (e.g. Cooper 1989; Fishman 1974; Haugen 1983). It includes status planning (the positioning of the language in a society), corpus planning (functions of the language), and acquisition planning (the promotion of language through education). Through language planning, a language is officialized, standardized, and maintained. Remarkably, language planning also involves multitudinous social dimensions (Cooper 1989; Tollefson 1991).
English has been one of the mandated subjects in formal education in non-English speaking countries. With its global status, English functions as a medium through which individuals participate in global events. For modernization and global competitiveness, English is implemented and integrated into school curricula in non-English speaking countries. In Asian-Pacific countries, ages at which English is
20
taught as a required subject in compulsory education keep shifting lower every few years (Nunan 2003). The planning and reforms reveal that English is highly valued and emphasized.
English is significantly unequally distributed in a society. Due to its instrumental values, English is thought to promise economic and social advancements (e.g. Grin 2001; Park 2011). Competence in English is a marker of social distinctions (Ricento 2010). Nonetheless, the direct association between competence in English and socioeconomic status raises two questions—assessments of English competence and the indeterminancy of the relations between the two. Linguistic competence which refers to the knowledge of proper language use (Hymes 1967) is in fact subjectively defined. Blommaert et al. (2005) assert that competence depends largely on linguistic markets for its recognition. In this fashion, legitimacy of competence is determined by how this language is positioned in a particular regime. Regimes are capable of validating and incapacitating speakers’ repertoires. In other words, competence and the recognition of it are context-specific. Since competence is not objectively measurable, values of the language and what speakers can obtain via competence in English are also determined by linguistic markets (Park 2011).
Furthermore, even with the support of empirical evidence that competence in English and its speakers’ socioeconomic status are related, there is a certain degree of difficulty to justify that English indeed has economic value. To begin with, even when competence in English and economy are related, it does not necessarily indicate that they are in causal relations. Additionally, there is a risk of circularity in deciding whether it is language that affects economy or the other way around (Grin 2001; Park 2011). Moreover, a bundle of other determinants are also in positive correlation with earnings. It suggests the inappropriateness to claim that English leads to financial advancements (Grin 2001). The stereotypes, however, are still proven so in Taiwanese
21
contexts.
One concern aroused by the global appraisal of English lies in the threat that it may pose to multilingualism. The number of English speakers is continuously growing. Hence, English is thought to eclipse multilingualism. The view was debated and soon refuted owing to the allocation of functions that English serves and the limited numerical strength in EFL and ESL settings (Phillipson 2003). English was first approached for intercultural communication (Brutt-Griffler 2002) and is acquired for instrumental values. The exploitation of English is goal-oriented and purposeful.
For individuals who acquire English as a second or foreign language, English is seldom adopted for identity marking (House 2003). Compared with one’s indigenous languages, English is allocated with different functions. Consequently, the discrepancies of functions of the global language and indigenous language need to be identified. The different allocation of functions rules out the possibility of English waning indigenous language and posing a threat to multilingualism.
The fact that English neither replaces nor invalidates local languages is attributable to still relatively limited numerical strength as well. Mufwene (1994, 2008) compares the global status of English to that of Latin in order to debunk the myth that English is a killer language. Latin, similar to English, was only favored as a communication tool in international trade. By the same token, though English enjoys high social prestige in Outer and Expanding circle countries like Taiwan, English is still spoken by a relatively small number of users. English is thus confined to certain domains while indigenous languages, Taiwanese and Chinese, can still fulfill nearly all communication demands (Tsai 2010). Moreover, Crystal (2003) asserts that language domination and death in fact operate independently from the spread of a global language. To sum up, the concern that English threatens multilingualism is invalid for it will not replace one’s native languages.
22 2.3.4 Linguistic ownership
The prevalence of English globally has cast spotlights on the concern of linguistic ownership, with nonnative speakers astonishingly outnumbering its native speakers (Crystal 2003). The labeling of native and nonnative dichotomy and Kachru’s (1985) model reinforces the hegemony of Inner Circle norms. A more deliberate account for the legitimacy of English is brought up. Ownership is proposed as an alternative of previous models (Higgins 2003). Widdowson (1994) suggests that authenticity, the ability to demonstrate standard English competence, plays a make-or-break role in ownership recognition. However, Widdowson also describes the deficiency of the strong conventional association between authenticity and ownership in catering to the world trend. The conventional approach, the purist school, emphasizes the uni-standard form of English, as Wee (2002) summarizes. The pragmatist school, on the other hand, advocates pluricentric standards of English and proposes that English is owned by all its users. The study adopts the pragmatists definition of ownership and investigate how ownership of English influences language ideology of it.