A study on how English is situated in a social context where it is reckoned as foreign draws the attention to interconnection of people from various parts of the world. Mobility is frequently associated to globalization. A ‗global village‘ is a common metaphor for the increasing interconnection among people from different parts of the world thanks to technology advancement. Nonetheless, the enhancing interconnectedness and mobility do not bring forth ‗a village‘ (Blommaert 2010). Rather, they further complicate social practice in nearly every aspect. Globalization also impacts on sociolinguistics as a research inquiry.
When speakers move, they bring with them their linguistic repertoire to a different space.
Linguistic repertoire is cultivated through, and thus reflexive of, a speaker‘s accumulated
social and bodily experiences with other speakers and with the space where these experiences take place (Johnstone 2004). Competence is spatially defined, not objectively measured and mobility can mute speakers. Blommaert, Collins and Slembrouck (2005) use ‗regime‘ to refer to agentivity of space in both situating different language resources and ordering them.
Mobility urges the need for a new definition of competence, which is no longer viewed as an objective, full-fledged control of a language. Competence, as Blommaert et al. (2005) put it,
29
―is about being positioned‖ (211). This way, competence is more similar to linguistic
resources which speakers select when they move across different regimes. This points to another key feature of globalization—a shift from talking about languages to discussing linguistic resources (Blommaert 2010). It is linguistic resources, not languages, that are
deterritorialized.
Blommaert (2010) suggests the need for new vocabulary in accounting for newly emergent phenomena under globalization. Blommaert (2010) proposes a framework in which linguistic resources move vertically at different levels. ‗Scales,‘ (e.g. Uitermark 2002), originally a concept from the inquiry of geography, is adopted to describe how linguistic resources are anchored in TimeSpace and structured in vertical layers. The notion of TimeSpace is coined to treat time and space of a speech event as a ―single dimension,‖ rather than two separate notions (Wallerstein 1998; Fals Borda 2000). The spatiotemporal notion of
TimeSpace specifies that by locking a physical object in TimeSpace, the phenomenon is
―made social‖ (Blommaert 2010: 34). Both scales and space are therefore theoretically
closely-knit in the discussion regarding sociolinguistic implications of globalization (Vandenbroucke 2015). With scales, semiotic practice is found to adhere to a variety of norms based on when and where practice occurs. Space is seen as stratified and norm-regulating.
Scales can be conceptualized as ‗a continuum‘ (Blommaert 2007) where norms can range from transient and local to static and established. These resources are not evenly distributed
30
among speakers and thus movement across scales, i.e. ‗scale-jumping‘ (Uitermark 2002), is indexical. ‗Order of indexicality,‘ the second new terminology by Blommaert (2010), describes how these linguistic resources can point to power, authority, and struggle in social contexts. When speakers regulate their speech by making reference to norms and conventions at a particular scale, these norms are recognized as a situated center. A center shifts when semiotic practice occurs in a different TimeSpace. Expectedly, interaction under ever-changing mobility never adheres to monocentric norms. The multiplicity of norms at
different scales shows the existence of numerous centers, a character of globalization which Blommaert (2010) terms ‗polycentricity.‘ Scales, orders of indexicality and polycentricity are
the new vocabulary Blommaert proposes to emphasize both multiplicity and situatedness of communication in globalization.
The spread of English and globalization are commonly found to serve as evidence to justify each other, making it nearly implausible to address one of them without mentioning the other. The global dominance of English is taken by many as a current phenomenon.
However, in theoretically accounting for the spread of English as a global language, stances differ and voices diverge in how this phenomenon has come to where it is, and how this phenomenon is understood. The first strand of studies connects the global prominence of English to West domination for monopoly (Spolsky 2004). This perspective assimilates the evolution of the spread of English to power-related terms. This strand suggests that English
31
dominance poses threat to the survival of minority languages, as the term ‗linguicism‘
(Phillipson 1992) describes. Linguistic imperialism (Phillipson 1992) views the contemporary spread of a dominant language as legacy of its imperial past. Threats to the vitality of less powerful languages or local languages are addressed from the perspective of linguistic human rights (Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas 1995), and linguistic ecology (Mühlhäusler 1996).
This strand of studies is criticized for an overall military and political account of language vitality and overlooking the interaction between language and other social indexes, such as economy and culture (Spolsky 2004). As Spolsky (2004) cites Bourdieu‘s (1991) discussion on globalization, language is only one manifestation of power, which can be realized in many more different facets.
Distinctive from the imperialist view, the second strand of studies attends to the fact that non-native speakers of English have outnumbered native speakers. The growing English-speaking population calls for a reexamination of correlations between the spread of English and British and American colonization (Spolsky 2004). Spolsky claims that the global spread of English in places intact from colonization implicates that communication purposes also devote to the geographical expansion of English. Kachru (1985) categorizes countries in concentric circles based on the distribution of English use. Inner Circle countries refer to the norm-providing Anglophone countries. Outer Circle countries are those with British colonial history and those using English on a daily basis. English in Expanding Circle
32
countries is acquired as a foreign language and used in restricted domains only. The three-circle framework is influential in providing a panoramic view in the global distribution of English. House (2003) also challenges the imperialism-oriented view that a global language poses threats to other languages. According to House (2003), a lingua franca like English hardly functions as an identification marker, unlike a speaker‘s first language. The allocation of distinctive functions makes doubtful the claim that English jeopardizes the survival of less powerful languages. Rather, the spread of English urges minority groups to
preserve their own languages and cultures (House 2003). Smolicz and Secombe (2003) also suggest that speakers‘ awareness of minority languages is highlightened. The increased
awareness leads to revitalization of local language as a result of resistance to English. The term ‗World Englishes‘ (e.g. Kachru 1985) addresses the power behind the increasing number of non-native users of English and its impacts on the native norms. The word ‗Englishes‘
describes the existence of more than one standard of English. The acknowledgement of multiple standards is thought to help to diminish the dichotomous discrimination between
native and non-native speakers. Blommaert (2010) also reflects that mobility ―does not preclude locality from being a powerful frame for the organization of meanings‖ (22). In sum,
the second strand of research challenges the centralized, inner-circle norms and debunks the myth that a powerful global language put powerless, indigenous languages at risk.
The second strand of research also leaves several issues unattended to. English as a
33
lingua franca commonly refers to the adaptation of English for communication by speakers from non-Inner Circle countries. The ideal distribution of English and local languages function-wise is termed ‗laissez-faire liberalism‘ by Pennycook (2000; 2001). The rationalization that there lies a harmonious division between English and local languages, as Park (2009) summarizes, still places English and local language hierarchically. The hierarchy is constantly overlooked in the discussion that adopts apolitical perspectives to global spread of English. This implies that these speakers still make reference to inner-circle norms. The act further reinforces the already entrenched dichotomy between native speakers and non-native speakers (Jenkins 2009). A possible consequence of reinforcing NS-NNS dichotomy is that standardized English will end up being more prevailing than it already. J.S.-Y. Park and Wee (2009) discuss the relation between the appropriation of English and ideological beliefs. In response to the further entrenched dichotomy between native speakers and nonnative speakers, the idea of ownership, speakers‘ self-perceived legitimacy in recognizing
themselves as English users, is proposed (Higgins 2003). When non-native speakers start to
‗own‘ the language, it indicates that English is undergoing the process of ‗de-owning‘ (House
2003) on the part of native speakers. The issue of ownership in contrast with nativeness gives rise to the discussion of identity (Higgins 2003). House (2003) claims that English for identification is less likely to develop in the context of using English as a lingua franca.
Bamgbose (2001) and Gupta (2001) also argue that English is gradually dissociated from its
34
Anglophone identification in the process of language teaching and learning.
Another criticism that the second strand of research on global English suffers, particularly Kachu‘s model (1985), lies in labeling English use at a national level. It inevitably overlooks the heterogeneity that goes beyond national lines (J.S.-Y. Park & Wee
2009). Bruthiaux (2003) suggests that the concentric trichotomy still leans toward a typology of English use in accord with a country‘s political history. The model also entails
homogeneity within nation (Jenkins 2009). Intra-nation varieties and its relation with other social variables, such as gender and ethnicity, are unaccounted for in Kachru‘s model. The
homogenization at national level, or the ‗erasure‘ as Park and Wee (2012) characterize it with Irvine and Gal‘s (2000) framework, overlooks the heterogeneity below national level and
highlight distinctions across nations. Furthermore, as a foreign languages used in restricted domains, English is unaddressed in the domain of popular cultures, which surely impacts on the global spread of English. Put simply, English as a lingua franca decontextualizes language use from its agency and its contexts (Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson 2010). The selected emphasis at national level and thus ignorance of other aspects affects how speakers view English. The distinction among the three circles and its presupposed inequality will only be reproduced and reinforced (Park & Wee 2009) as a consequence of ideological work (Woolard 1998).
The third strand of research, a market-theoretic perspective on English, corresponds
35
largely to Heller‘s commodification of language (2003, 2010a, 2010b). This strand sees the expansion of English as governed by capitalist market. Park and Wee (2012) suggests that the time when different critiques about English and globalization are thriving coincides with the onset of knowledge economy. An economic approach to contemporary language practice calls for not merely a reconceptualization of language, but also a redefinition of market where
linguistic exchange generates profits. Once unsellable entities start to generate profit in globalized economy, a phenomenon which Heller (2010b) refers to as ‗capital expansion.‘
Accompanied by capital expansion are the interests in search of new markets (Heller 2010a, 2010b) where these entities are priced. The new development of economic activities lead to four new phenomena of language—that more people are involved in linguistic exchange, that forms of communication evolve due to technology advancement, that tensions between decontextualized standardization of language practice and situated, local representation of authenticity emerge, and that language becomes the product itself (Heller 2010b). These four phenomena show that language in globalized economy is gradually playing an increasingly central role in economy than ever (Heller 2003; 2010b; 2010a). The new trend of treating language as something profitable in the new market demands reflections on language and its exchange values at two aspects—an emphasis on language exchanges which were not for economic exchange are now economics-centered, and a focus on circulation of goods which did not rely on the language is now language-mediated.
36
Languages can be commodified in two senses, as a measurable skill and as a symbol of authenticity (Heller 2003; 2010b; 2010a). Traditionally, the power of the speakers, particularly politics-wise and military-wise, contributes to the international status and use (Crystal 2003). As far as a foreign language is concerned, economic strength is definitely one of the chief determinants for acquisition (Ammon 2010). Mufwene (2010) points out that the spread of English in Expanding Circles ―correlates more or less with the extent to which particular countries participate in the world-wide globalized economy‖ (46). This explicates how dominant English and its speakers are in linguistic market at the global level. De Swaan (2001) offers an economic account on the spread of English by assimilating language to goods, and learning language to investing. Wee (2008) terms the phenomenon of judging
values of language based on its usefulness in socioeconomic and materialistic sense
‗linguistic instrumentalism‘. However, an economics-oriented account to English poses both
conceptual and methodological challenges in defining the relation between English and economic activities. To justify that English brings monetary profit, the interaction between English competence and income constantly suffers from circularity when the connection is explained to be sequential and downright straightforward (Grin 2001). The economy-driven
account regards the contemporary spread of English as consequences of language selection by individuals, as Spolsky (2004) summarizes, ―the development of English into global language … reflects local and individual language acquisition decisions, responding to
37
change in the complex ecology of the world‘s language system‖ (90). The market
transformation leads to new possibilities of English to develop and for language consumers to reflect on this new development.
The exchange value of language is probably best explained by the observed blooming of ‗language industries‘ with the development of economic activities surrounding
competence-required jobs, such as translation and language teaching (Heller 2010a, 2010b).
On the one hand, speakers exchange their competence in the market with job opportunities and higher income. On the other, consumers purchase communication-related product to cater to their own needs. To acquire language is to acquire knowledge that comes in the form of goods (Fairclough 2002). Heller (2010a; 2010b) further adds that economic concerns surpass political ones in capital expansion. The idea of market by Bourdieu (1977) is metaphorical and, to an extent, local and closed (Blommaert 2010). Blommaert (2010) suggests that markets under globalization are also mobile with less transparency compared to Bourdieu‘s market. Language is treated as merchandize with two seemingly contradictory ideologies.
First, to assimilate language skills to job skills relies on the ideology of treating linguistic knowledge as knowledge equally accessible and objectively measurable with a decontextualized standard (Heller 2010a; 2010b). Yet, language with local variations suggests a sense of authenticity and is profitable in industries such as heritage tourism. Language commodification, both as a skill and as one of the authentic artifacts in the package of
38
heritage tourism, reveals the contrast and negotiability between language standardization and variability (Heller 2010a; 2010b). The concept of language commodification challenges the traditional nationalist ideology of language, which relates the use of language to national identity and to the power deployment of nation-state (Heller 2010a). In an updated discussion on commodification, Heller and Duchêne (2016) further states that newly added economic values to products for niche markets have started to expand to semiosis and cause national languages to be branded in the market. The observation has several remarkable implications.
First, as Heller and Duchêne (2016) also note, language consumers find themselves tangled in the emergent tussle over different ideologies, including ideology of authority, that of authenticity and that of legitimacy. Second, the search for niche markets in the neoliberal capitalism has profound influence on how language is viewed and used.
An economic account of linguistic practice calls on attention to the distinction between language commodification (Heller 2003; 2010a; Heller & Duchêne 2016) and language economics (Grin & Vaillancourt 2012). Language commodification is seen as a process ―in
which elements of the ideological construction of the nation-state are inscribed more directly into the workings of capitalism than they were before‖ (Heller & Duchêne 2016, 146). On the other hand, language economics adopts ―the concepts and tools of economics in the study of
relationships featuring linguistic variables‖ (Grin 1996, 6). Language commodification addresses value addition to language as a response to the changing global economy whereas
39
language economics provides predicative models in explaining the relation between competence and income. An economic account of language has been under investigation in the past few decades, and yet faces the problem of having a fragmentary body of literature (W.
Zhang & Grenier 2013), with varying terms such as ‗economics of language,‘ ‗language economics,‘ and ‗economics and language‘ used by different strands of studies. The traditional economic-orientation to language investigates the connection between language and earning (e.g. Grin 2001), the connection between economy and language vitality (e.g. De Swaan 2010), and the association between economics and language planning (e.g. Zhang &
Grenier 2015). The study accounts for the observations in the metadiscourse with the framework of language commodification. The study suggests how English is discursively presented with values shows how it is commodified.