Linguistic imperialism or language imperialism is defined as "the transfer of a dominant language to other people". This language transfer, or more accurately, unilateral imposition, is a consequence of imperialism. The transfer signifies power, traditionally associated with military power but in the modern context, also encompassing economic power. Typically, aspects of the dominant culture are transferred alongside the language. Geographically, while hundreds of Europe's indigenous languages function as official (state) languages in Eurasia, non-indigenous imperial (European) languages serve this role almost exclusively in the "Rest of the World". In contemporary discourse, linguistic imperialism may also be examined within the framework of international development. It influences the criteria by which organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank assess the reliability and value of structural adjustment loans, often reflecting perspectives commonly emphasized in English-language discourse rather than a neutral stance (linguistic relativism). Since the early 1990s, linguistic imperialism has garnered significant academic attention within applied linguistics. Notably, Robert Phillipson's 1992 publication, Linguistic Imperialism, stimulated considerable debate regarding the phenomenon's advantages and disadvantages. Phillipson's research identified historical critiques of linguistic imperialism, including those from Nazi Germany concerning the British Council (at a time when European aristocracy increasingly adopted English), and Soviet analyses characterizing English as the language of world capitalism and world domination. In this context, criticism of English as a global language is frequently associated with anti-globalism.
Definition Linguistic imperialism is a form of linguicism which benefits and grants power to the dominating/oppressing language and its speakers. As summarized by linguists Heath Rose and John Conama, Dr. Phillipson argues that the defining characteristics of linguistic imperialism are:
As a form of linguicism, which manifests in favoring the dominant language over another along similar lines as racism and sexism. As a structurally manifested idea, where more resources and infrastructure are given to the dominant language As being ideological, in that it encourages beliefs that the dominant language form is more prestigious than others. These ideas are hegemonic and internalized and naturalized as being "normal". As intertwined with the same structure as imperialism in culture, education, media, and politics. As having an exploitative essence, which causes injustice and inequality between those who use the dominant language and those who do not. As having a subtractive influence on other languages, in that learning the dominant language is at the expense of others. As being contested and resisted, because of these factors. Although it is not easy to determine the intentions of specific policies which have led to linguicism, some scholars believe that intent can be proven by observing whether imperialist practices are continued once their sociolinguistic, sociological, psychological, political, and educational harm of other languages are made aware.
History The impacts of colonization on linguistic traditions vary based on the form of colonization experienced: trader, settler or exploitation. Congolese-American linguist Salikoko Mufwene describes trader colonization as one of the earliest forms of European colonization. In regions such as the western coast of Africa as well as the Americas, trade relations between European colonizers and indigenous peoples led to the development of pidgin languages. Some of these languages, such as Delaware Pidgin and Mobilian Jargon, were based on Native American languages, while others, such as Nigerian Pidgin and Cameroonian Pidgin, were based on European ones. As trader colonization proceeded mainly via these hybrid languages, rather than the languages of the colonizers, scholars like Mufwene contend that it posed little threat to indigenous languages.
Trader colonization was often followed by settler colonization, where European colonizers settled in these colonies to build new homes. Hamel, a Mexican linguist, argues that "segregation" and "integration" were two primary ways through which settler colonists engaged with aboriginal cultures. In countries such as Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, and those in the Caribbean, segregation and genocide decimated indigenous societies. Widespread death due to war and illness caused many indigenous populations to lose their indigenous languages. In contrast, in countries that pursued policies of "integration", such as Mexico, Guatemala and the Andean states, indigenous cultures were lost as aboriginal tribes mixed with colonists. In these countries, the establishment of new European orders led to the adoption of colonial languages in governance and industry. In addition, European colonists also viewed the dissolution of indigenous societies and traditions as necessary for the development of a unified nation state. This led to efforts to destroy tribal languages and cultures: in Canada and the United States, for example, Native children were sent to boarding schools such as Col. Richard Pratt's Carlisle Indian Industrial School. Today, in countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia, which were once settler colonies, indigenous languages are spoken by only a small minority of the populace.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
