Language, Power and English: Standards, Ideology and Identity

What Is a Language?

What is a language? Mainstream linguistics treats languages as bounded, countable and separable objects. This is the product of two processes: nation-building (the French Revolution and German Romanticism, which saw language as the soul of the nation: different languages equal different peoples, nations and states) and standardization and schooling.

Sociolinguistic definition of language: a heterogeneous set of communicative features that has been historically and politically constructed as a "named language". It is a tool used by people in different contexts, not fixed, and constantly evolving.

Standards and Standardization

The standard is the form taught in schools and used in the media and bureaucracy, tied to citizenship and modelled on writing (full sentences, "correct grammar"). It has no real existence; it is an idealization. Non-standard structures are rule-governed, just stigmatized.

Lippi-Green states that the standard is a myth: a powerful cultural belief that motivates social behaviour, justifies ranking speakers and marginalizes those who do not speak it. The standard is constructed as unmarked, which produces the myth of non-accent. Hudson argues that standards result from deliberate intervention by society.

Haugen's Four Stages of Standardization

1. Selection of a variety (often that of the powerful; Euskara Batua was built from several varieties)
2. Codification (grammars, dictionaries)
3. Elaboration of function (new vocabulary for more domains)
4. Implementation (schools, bureaucracies, media)

Language Ideologies

Language ideologies are ideologies about language, not political ideologies encoded in language: sets of beliefs, feelings and received ideas. Examples include: Indian English is funny (raciolinguistics); English guarantees socioeconomic advancement (linguistic instrumentalism); one nation, one language; mixing languages is bad; native speakers know best; monolingualism is natural.

The concept was developed by linguistic anthropologists in the late 1980s (Gal, Woolard, Urla), building on Silverstein (1979). The key question: what mediates between situated language use and social structure? Irvine (1989) defines language ideologies as morally and politically loaded representations of the nature, structure and use of languages in a social world. They always rank speakers (as better, more refined, more educated).

Properties of Language Ideologies

• They obscure the constructed, power-influenced and historical nature of ideas about language (de-historicize, de-socialize, de-contextualize).
• They involve misrecognition (Bourdieu): subordinate speakers accept the structures that dominate them.
• They are socially circulated, an "enactment of a collective order" (Gal and Woolard).
• They serve the powerful and are treated as objective truths and common sense, which makes them hard to challenge.

Piller (2015) notes that language ideologies bridge language and society (Woolard). For example, Lufthansa crews must use du, assuming informal pronouns create egalitarian structures. Indian English works as an ideological label: Apu is a fiction based on a fiction, voiced by Hank Azaria.

Standard Language Ideology

The standard language ideology is the belief that the variety of the powerful, written-based and learned through schooling is superior. It makes exclusion seem fair; for Bourdieu, lacking the legitimate competence means exclusion or silence.

One nation, one language: Roosevelt (1919); Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act has been contested. Under neoliberalism the ideology adapts: Filipino meat workers in Australia do not need English for the job, yet permanent residency depends on an English test, which keeps them a flexible, rightless workforce.

Language Variation

Variation is routine, functional and about the speaking person, not about language alone (Lippi-Green). It carries social meaning and we use it to size up others. Types include:

• Geographic
• Social (age, gender, sexuality, class, ethnicity, religion)
• Temporal
• Contextual (register and style)

Variation is studied to understand change and to expose inequality and discrimination.

Variety, Dialect and Accent

Variety: any distinct form of a language, used neutrally (Australian English, Hong Kong English). This is the preferred term today.

Dialect: vocabulary, syntax and grammar signal regional or social background. It carries negative connotations: the standard is "correct" and "from nowhere", while the dialect is "incorrect" and "local" (Geordie and Cockney are examples). Dialects change gradually across space.

Accent: pronunciation only, including segmental features (sounds) and prosodic features (stress, tempo, intonation). Accents form loose bundles across geographic or social space (Lippi-Green). Variety and accent are not one-to-one.

The Myth of Non-Accent

Everyone has an accent; accents are simply "what other people have". Lippi-Green's sound house metaphor holds that the phonology of the first language is a house built in childhood: adults cannot fully rebuild it, they can only add an extension. The case of Kahakua (a Hawaiian Creole speaker denied a radio job) shows employers and experts treating accent as a deficit. Judgements about accent reflect listeners' ideologies. Lippi-Green's communicative burden describes how listeners often refuse their share of the effort when communicating with stigmatized speakers.

Register, Style and Stylization

Register (Agha): a repertoire linked culturally to social practices and persons, such as baby talk or academic and professional jargon. Its features are lexis, grammar and prosody. Speakers notice dialect more than register, yet register variation is more frequent.

Style (Eckert): a bundle of ways of speaking, dressing and moving linked to social personae, such as the "jocks" and "burnouts" in a Detroit school. No variant works alone.

Stylization (Rampton): specially marked, exaggerated representations of varieties outside one's own repertoire, usually mocking. Apu in The Simpsons is an example.

The Native Speaker

The native speaker is treated as a superior category in language education. This is a myth of socio-educational approaches. It assumes a childhood L1 acquired in a monolingual, homogeneous environment tied to a place, and equates this with proficiency and intuition. In fact, advantages come from sustained, rich exposure, not from childhood L1 socialization.

The underlying ideas are: nativeness equals nationality (the native speaker "embodies" the nation); immobility, monolingualism and monoculturalism are the default (real repertoires are truncated, Blommaert 2010); and a racial and ethnic imagination (white, middle class). ELT hiring in China and Saudi Arabia is a clear example.

Acronyms

• ENL: English as a Native Language
• ESL: English as a Second Language
• EFL: English as a Foreign Language
• ELF: English as a Lingua Franca
• EIL: English as an International Language
• EAL: English as an Additional Language
• ELT: English Language Teaching

Figures, Metaphors and Discourses on English

Figures

Native speakers of Chinese number about 1.39 billion, with Hindi-Urdu and other languages also exceeding English. However, learners of English number about 1.5 billion, making it the most studied foreign language. The number of second-language learners, not native speakers, is what makes English exceptional.

Metaphors

Lakoff and Johnson (1980) argue that metaphors are everyday cognitive devices that make abstract things tangible. They are ideological because they take a view of reality for granted.

Metaphors of language:

• Living organism (birth, death, endangered languages)
• Family (parent language, offspring, family trees)
• Plants (the Indo-European tree, branches, roots)

Metaphors of English:

• Transported object ("brought to America", Baugh and Cable 1993)
• Moving being ("arrival", "mobile", Smith 2012)
• Plant ("grows from many roots", Rushdie)
• Something that spreads (Trudgill 2013; germs, "spread the word"), with both positive and negative connotations

What these metaphors naturalize: no human agency; the erasure of speakers and sociopolitical processes; the idea that the influence of English is unstoppable, inevitable and natural. Crystal describes English as being in "the right place at the right time".

Discourses on English (Pennycook)

Celebratory "neutral" discourse: English rose through its own qualities. Examples include the British Council (2013) and The English Effect ("UK's greatest gift to the world", trade, peacekeeping, lingua franca); Crystal (1987; over 60 countries, 80% of electronic information, two-thirds of scientists); Jenkins (1995; hegemony through inherent qualities such as flexibility); and Claiborne (the largest, most expressive vocabulary: 400,000 to 600,000 words, versus 150,000 for French).

19th-century continuity: Guest (1838) called English the great medium of civilization; George (1867) argued that a highly civilized race has a highly accomplished language; Rolleston (1911) described English as the speech of the globe under the British flag. The tone is the same triumphalism, with different vocabulary. The Sunday Times (1994) declared that "English marches on" and that its rise was "inevitable".

Three Images Behind the Big-Vocabulary Argument

1. Purity: an Anglo-Saxon or even Aryan lineage. Bailey notes that the idea of a racially pure language echoes Hitler's Reich.
2. Borrowing as democracy and openness: words as tributaries to the river, used against the French Academy. But colonial evidence contradicts this: the British mixed little with the colonized. Bailey shows that exotic words were accepted mainly when other Europeans had already adopted them, and that equality is needed for borrowing.
3. Thought: more words and finer distinctions mean English speakers think better.

Conclusion: contemporary discourse presents English as superior and its rise as the result of those qualities, using figures and metaphors to depoliticize and de-historicize its spread.

Politicising the Spread: Linguistic Imperialism

Phillipson's Theory

The concept of linguistic imperialism was coined in Phillipson (1992). It studies the links between language policy and empires and reacts against sanitized, apolitical views (Crystal, Graddol). Its main claim is that English did not simply spread; it was imposed as the language of colonization, military domination and exploitation, and its present dominance is tied to the imperial project.

• Old empire: military domination; British exploitation and colonization of Asia and Africa; the US in the 19th and 20th centuries.
• New empire: economic and cultural domination; US influence after WWII; corporations (Hardt and Negri's Empire); neocolonialism.

Features of Linguistic Imperialism

• It interlocks with imperialism in culture, education, media, economy, politics and the military.
• It is about exploitation, injustice and hierarchy.
• It is structural (more material resources for the dominant language).
• It is ideological (it glorifies the dominant language, stigmatizes others and rationalizes the hierarchy).
• It is hegemonic (internalized and naturalized as normal).
• It produces unequal rights.
• It is subtractive (learning English at the expense of other languages).
• It is a form of linguicism and is invariably contested and resisted.

The hierarchy pattern works in three steps: stigmatize dominated languages (as "dialects"), glorify the dominant one (for its clarity and richness), and rationalize the relationship (access to progress). Historical examples include Latin, Spanish (Nebrija: language as the consort of empire), French (Berlin Academy, 1782), and Welsh and Irish, with English described as a "lingua nullius".

Effects

The effects are beneficial for the core and harmful for the periphery: marginalization and death of languages ("killer language" and linguistic genocide, Skutnabb-Kangas 2000); homogenization; English as a key medium of Americanization and Westernization; and, in recent work, the imposition of a neoliberal agenda. Examples include Singapore (English at home), international schools, scientific publishing, the EU and the World Bank. A counter-example is Nordic language policy, which protects national languages.

Key Concepts

Linguicism (Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson 1994) refers to ideologies, structures and practices that legitimate an unequal division of power and resources between groups defined by language. Examples include English-language degrees and papers being assumed to be better, and native speakers being ranked higher.

Hegemony (Gramsci) is domination by consent through cultural, moral and intellectual leadership rather than force alone. Dominant ideas become common sense and block alternatives.

The two were "two sides of the colonial coin" and worked together.

English and Colonialism (Pennycook)

Colonialism is also cultural, discursive and ideological: discourses produce "truths" about people and colonize bodies and minds. Coloniality is the continuing colonization of the mind after political decolonization. Pennycook argues that the most important domination was that of the mental universe of the colonized.

• Orientalism (18th century): rule India through its customs and laws (policy 1774 to 1785); education in Sanskrit, Arabic and Persian; William Jones; fascination with the "noble savage". Yet it built knowledge that facilitated colonial rule.
• Anglicism (19th century): rule through British customs and law, associated with Macaulay. It was linked to Darwinism and cultural evolutionism (Tylor): cultures were ranked, with Britain the most evolved, justifying colonialism and the "white man's burden" to civilize. It set the Other (backward, lazy, feminine) against the Self (rational, modern, male).

Macaulay's Minute (1835)

Macaulay's Minute justified English-medium education for an elite class. English was withheld as much as it was promoted: most education took place in the vernaculars (producing a docile workforce, since English could be "a dangerous weapon"), and English was reserved for the elite. This built English's value as prestigious and unattainable. English studies grew out of the needs of the Empire, and English literature was taught in Indian schools.

ELT and Soft Power

After WWII, Britain and the US used ELT as soft power. Key institutions included the British Council (1940), the USIA, and the Rockefeller, Ford and Fulbright programmes. Textbooks became cultural tools and teachers became cultural vehicles, making ELT complicit with the imperial project.

Reception and Critique

Holborrow (1999) argues that linguistic imperialism bolsters right-wing nationalism and that most ELT teachers are unaware of its ideological foundations. Critics such as Canagarajah (1999, Resisting Linguistic Imperialism) argue that the theory denies agency and makes people passive victims, and Joseph (2006) calls it "patronising to the extreme".

Phillipson's reply: there is no such thing as free personal choice, since choices are constrained by language policy, education and labour markets. The opposition between imposition and free choice is a false dichotomy, because push and pull factors both operate. Phillipson argues that critics misrepresent the theory.

The Scientific Politics of English: The Birth of Applied Linguistics

Postwar Britain

In postwar Britain, English was seen as an asset for keeping influence, especially in Asia. Churchill described the postwar battles over people's minds. The British Council Annual Report of 1983 to 1984 called language "our greatest asset, greater than North Sea oil".

The British Council was founded in 1934 and named in 1940 (royal charter: wider knowledge of the UK and of English abroad). Between 1940 and 1945 it countered Nazi propaganda.

• Drogheda Report (1954): English as soft power, benefiting trade.
• 1956 Committee on the Teaching of English Overseas proposed five measures: more teachers as cultural ambassadors; better conditions for British teachers (the "white man's burden" became the "native-speaking teacher's burden"); promotion of British textbooks; training and research departments; and acknowledgement of and cooperation with the US.

The United States

In the Cold War context, the US supported ELT through the Fulbright programme (1946), the USIA, and the Ford, Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations, which funded university departments. The Center for Applied Linguistics (1959, funded by Ford) tied ELT to developmental aid.

Applied Linguistics

Applied linguistics emerged in the 1950s. The name first appeared in Language Learning (1948, Michigan), and the Edinburgh School of Applied Linguistics was founded in 1957. Its aim was to make ELT a scientific field. Authority over teaching theory moved from teachers to linguists, and the field was positivist and prescriptive ("method"), building centre-periphery relations of legitimacy.

Five Fallacies (Makerere 1961; Phillipson 1992)

1. Monolingual: English is best taught only through English.
2. Native speaker: the ideal teacher is a native speaker.
3. Early start: the earlier, the better.
4. Maximum exposure: the more English is taught, the better.
5. Subtractive: using other languages lowers English standards.

The monolingual fallacy is false, because L2 learning benefits from L1 cognitive development (Cummins 1984). It expressed colonial power relations (other languages were devalued, sanctioned, and alienated children), enforced a Eurocentric monolingual norm, and separated ELT from translation and bilingual traditions. The native speaker fallacy stemmed from the British applied linguistics focus on spoken language and the view of language teaching as culture teaching.

WorldEnglishes: Questioning the Monocentric Standard

Aims: to deproblematize non-native varieties, question native speakers' ownership of English, and promote a pluricentric view. This is "liberation linguistics": freeing English from its colonial heritage. In 1976, a call was made for native speakers to replace linguistic chauvinism with tolerance, recognizing Americanness, Englishness and Indianness as a "linguistic mosaic".

The Three Circles

• Inner Circle (norm-providing; ENL): settler colonization from the 15th to 18th centuries, the first diaspora; English is the main language in all domains.
• Outer Circle (norm-developing; ESL): exploitation colonization from the 17th to 19th centuries, the second diaspora; English is used in official and formal domains, with class-unequal access.
• Expanding Circle (norm-dependent; EFL): no colonial presence, linked to globalization; English is used for international communication.

The circles represent forms of spread, patterns of acquisition and functional domains.

Features Versus Mistakes

Distinctive features come from contact with other languages, are systematic within a variety and are acceptable (Kachru 1983). The criteria are acceptability and systematicity.

Quirk Versus Kachru (English Today, early 1990s)

Quirk argued that non-native varieties are inadequately learnt native forms, that Standard British English should be taught for freedom and career prospects, and that non-native teachers must stay in touch with the native language. This is a deficit view. Kachru argued for difference, not deficit, noted that Outer Circle realities are more complex, and pointed out that every position is ideological, including Quirk's.

Monocentrism Versus Pluricentrism

Monocentrism holds that there is one English, with varieties, and one standard. Pluricentrism holds that there are multiple standards, "a club of equals" (McArthur): singularity versus plurality, monochrome versus polychrome.

The model became known as World Englishes (journal founded 1982; IAWE 1992). It holds that English has multiple identities and a repertoire of cultures, with equal validity and dignity (an "egalitarian matrix", Saraceni).

Criticisms (Jenkins 2003)

• It is descriptive, not explanatory.
• It focuses too much on geographic varieties and is nationalist.
• It oversimplifies the Outer Circle.
• It is based on geography and history rather than identification (Singapore versus Malaysia; Outer Circle speakers using English as an L1).
• The circles blur (Scandinavia moving from EFL to ESL).

Limitations

The approach is politically naive. The Inner Circle holds about 30% of world wealth with 6% of the population, and the Outer Circle the reverse, so difference is not equality. The comparison builds in a deficit (different from what?) and overlooks similarities. Its focus on the Outer Circle led to ELF research. It also raises the paradox of how much difference is allowed before unintelligibility, and hybrid repertoires (Bollywood, Happy New Year) make a discrete variety problematic.

Comparing and Contrasting

• Crystal versus Phillipson: neutral spread ("right place, right time") versus imposition by imperial structures; a metaphor of spread versus agency.
• Pennycook versus Phillipson: both are political. Pennycook stresses discourse and continuity from colonialism and critiques the agency-denying parts of linguistic imperialism; Phillipson stresses structures and material inequality.
• Phillipson versus Kachru: Phillipson sees English as an instrument of hierarchy; Kachru seeks liberation by legitimizing local Englishes. Kachru is criticized for ignoring material inequality.
• Quirk versus Kachru: deficit versus difference; monocentric versus pluricentric.
• Orientalism versus Anglicism: respect for local culture (in order to rule) versus a civilizing mission; both serve rule.
• Standard language ideology (Lippi-Green, Piller) and the native speaker fallacy: both rank speakers by an idealized norm and justify exclusion.
• Hegemony links the discourses of naturalization (1.2), consent (1.3) and the myth of non-accent.