titutions in certain developed coun-tries where English is spoken as a first language (e.g. USA, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand). These institutions and their personnel should therefore help the development and running of English language curricula and programmes globally in tertiary, secondary and primary education. The ideal teacher is the English ‘native speaker’ from one of the aforementioned devel-oped, English-speaking countries. Therefore, educational institutions globally would benefit from employing these people. If this is not possible, the teacher should have ‘near-native’ oral competence in one of the standard varieties of these countries.
Third, the presence of teachers, academics, curriculum developers, institu-tions such as the British Council, and publishers in the teaching of English glob-ally in developing and developed countries is part of a mutually beneficial transaction between the ‘Anglos’ and the recipients of their expertise. This is the case whether it is paid for by the recipients or received through development aid. This is because the recipients get English and all the benefits associated with it while the provider countries get employment for their citizens and associated trade directly for the English language teaching industry and indirectly for other industries, as well as receiving the benefits of other cultural links.
The following quotation from Bowers, who was at the time of writing the Brit-ish Council’s Director of English Language Services, neatly summarises the essence of these givens.
By providing a society with a reasonable number of reasonably competent speakers of English, we are assisting in the transfer of technology, the flow of information, and the expansion of manpower; we, the technologically and commercially developed nations of the English-speaking world are providing ourselves not only with English-speaking customers but also with collaborators and potential competitors. We do not – if we ever did – force English on a reluctant client, however much from time to time the individual enforced learner may encourage the impression. No, we react to a grown and growing universal demand. (Bowers, 1986: 398)
Phillipson (1992) problematises every one of these givens using a neo-Marxist critique in which he argues that the global spread of English, particularly through English language teaching, is a part of linguistic imperialism.
A working definition of English linguistic imperialism is that the domi-nance of English is asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages. Here structural refers broadly to material properties (for example, institutions, financial allocations) and cultural to immaterial or ideological properties (for example, attitudes, pedagogic principles). (Phillipson, 1992: 47) 本
论文由
英语论文网www.51lunwen.org整理提供
What Phillipson’s book helped to expose for even those who disagreed with his analysis was the fact that the English language as a means of intra-national and international communication and the teaching of it had been generally clean of politics and sociology in applied linguistics, while culture had only been dealt with in a narrow, essentialist form. Globalization and Language Teaching and The Sociopolitics of English Language Teaching demonstrate how the political, social and the cultural are now key parts of work in applied linguistics
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。