英语论文网

ssued what he considered to be a far reaching announcement about international satellite telecasting. It is Murdoch’s intention to create a global village where all citizens of the world could be entertained or watch news programming without inhibition. Facilitators of this modern version of instantaneous information transfer are metallic dishes. Murdoch’s technological arrangement is a multi-million dollar business of privately owned satellite telecasting. Programming via the medium would be consistent with the owner’s political philosophies: Murdoch, a staunch supporter of Margaret Thatcher’s free market capitalism, has long since made it clear to editors of his British newspapers that they should not be politically independent. Their editorial inclinations ought to reflect views of the Conservative Party in Britain. The Australian/American is not a public servant to the world. He is a media baron motivated by prospects of super normal profits. I think that if the world is to be a true global village, then satellite telecasting should originate, not just from rich developed countries. Programming about developing societies from these locations should also be telecast in the developed world. This type of exchange is, however, unfeasible, because of prohibitive costs of the developing world. The burden of cultural invasion can also be revealed by looking at the statuses of what have come to be known as vernaculars in ex-colonial possessions. Vernaculars, many of which do not have official language designation, are used by the oppressed. According to Phillipson ( 1992, p. 40 ), use of the term, vernacular, is not accidental. He notes that the term is a loaded term. It refers to what is homebred, homemade, homegrown, rather than what emanates from formal exchange. In popular and technical usage, it connotes localised, sub-standard, non-standard language which is very different to literary, cultured or foreign languages. For Phillipson, vernaculars are, therefore, stigmatised in relation to languages elevated as the norms. Catford is, thus, correct when he states that the development of any discipline is influenced by the cultural and political setting in which it occurs. Such is, doubtless, true of linguistics. It is to the setting that I turn, for the purpose of explaining the absence of commitment to removing oppression. This is a locus defined by what Phillipson ( 1992, pp. 47 - 61 ) regards as linguistic imperialism strongly condemned by Ansre ( 1979, pp. 12 - 13 ) who defines it as a state in which the experience of users of a language are oppressed by another language to the extent that they internalise the view: only the dominant language should be employed for dealing with advanced versions of life such as education, Philosophy, literature, and the administration of justice. Linguistic imperialism alters, in subtle fashion, the expectations, and attitudes of persons who are impeded from appreciating and actualising the full potential of indigenous languages. Other analysts, notably Calvet ( 1987 ), have conceptualised linguistic imperialism as linguistic racism. This is a position of which I am fully supportive, for I accept the views expressed by West ( 1999, pp. 70 - 71 ) and Marable ( 1997, pp. 185 - 186 ) on racism. For Marable, racism refers to an unequal relationship between social groups strengthened by patterns of power, ownership, and privilege which reside within social, economic, and political organisation