linguistlist.org>
Editor for this issue: Terence Langendoen <terrylinguistlist.org>
linguistlist.org or Terry Langendoen at terrylinguistlist.org.
students.uiuc.edu>Ricento, Thomas, ed. (2000) Ideology, Politics and Language Policies: Focus on English, John Benjamins, paperback, viii+198pp., Impact: Studies in Language and Society, 6, ISBN: 90-272-1837-4 (Eur.) / 1-55619-670-9 (US) Reviewed by Liwei Gao, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign SYNOPSIS This volume collects ten papers on ideology, politics, and language policies, eight of which were presented either at the 1998 annual convention of TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) or AAAL (American Association for Applied Linguistics). Both were held in Seattle, Washington. Of the other two papers, one was previously published in TESOL Quarterly and the other was written especially for this collection. In Chapter One, Ideology, Politics and Language Policies: Introduction, editor Thomas Ricento provides a detailed orientation to the aim of this volume and the theoretical framework with which the ten studies were conducted. In addition, Ricento generalizes four major themes out of the contents of these papers: 1) Different language policies may share the same ideology, and similar policies may be motivated by different ideologies; 2) Language ideologies are connected with other ideologies, which may also influence language polices; 3) Ideologies in colonial and post-colonial contexts do not flow in one direction from the Center to the Periphery. Instead, the flow is bi- directional; and 4) Certain ideology challenges or even contests the efforts of dominant social groups to legitimate their power. Chapter Two, Historical and Theoretical Perspectives in Language Policy and Planning, also by editor Thomas Ricento, examines the evolution of language planning and policy. In so doing he identifies three types of forces that shape language policy formation - macro- sociopolitical factors, epistemological factors, and strategic factors. According to Ricento, the early work in language planning and policy (in the early 1960s) was heavily influenced by decolonization, structuralism, and pragmatism. The second stage of language planning and policy (from the early 1970s through the late 1980s) was affected by the failure of the decolonized nations to modernize themselves, the challenge to autonomous linguistics by critical sociolinguistics, and the lack of access to socioeconomic prosperity (based on education) on the part of socially dominated individuals and communities. As Ricento notes, the third phase (from the mid-1980s to the present) is still in the formative stage, although he still characterizes it as being swayed by the new world order, postmodernism, and the assertion of linguistic human rights (Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas 1996). In Chapter Three, Language Policies as Virtual Realities: Two Australian Examples, Helen Moore first reviews two language policies in Australia, the National Policy on Languages (NPL) (1987) and the Australian Language and Literacy Policy (ALLP) (1991). In so doing she observes that these two policies differ radically and the principle of plurality and equity was not respected by the 1991 policy. In her own words, "The ALLP's role was to replace a pluralist approach with one that set narrower priorities" (p. 33). Moore then demonstrates that Cooper's approach to explaining language policy formation is deficient. For instance, she problematizes Cooper's assumption that language policy description within the framework "what actors attempt to influence what behaviors of which people for what ends under what conditions by what means through what decision-making process with what effect" (p. 33) is unproblematic. She also points out that circular arguments are involved in the justification of Cooper's descriptive framework. After this Moore analyses NPL and ALLP using Dorothy Smith's insights, which include the assumption that all descriptions of language policy formation are partial and interested. Quoting Smith (1990a: 74), Moore notes that for both state authorities and social scientists, factive texts are "virtual realities" (p. 40). Chapter Four is Alastair Pennycook's contribution, Language, Ideology and Hindsight: Lessons from Colonial Language Policies. In this chapter Pennycook first examines four different but interrelating and interacting motivations that helped to shape colonial language policies, and then looks at their implications for current policies. The four motivations are: 1) the development of imperial capitalism within the British Empire; 2) Anglicism in the name of civilizing the colonies; 3) local governance and control; and 4) Orientalism in the name of preserving local cultures and traditions. Based on the discussion of these "four poles" (p. 50) Pennycook epitomizes the nature of the colonial language policy - complexity, contextuality, complicity, complementarity, and continuity. For instance, by "complicity" it is meant that although Anglicist and Orientalist adherents held different opinions about the role of English vs. vernaculars in providing literacy to local people, yet their ulterior motivation was the same - domination. And Pennycook concludes this paper by proposing a "'situated ethics of language possibilities', a view that argues that language policy can only be understood in the contexts of language use" (p. 64). In Continuity and Change in the Function of Language Ideologies in the United States (Chapter Five), Terrence Wiley first reexamines the language tolerance hypothesis proposed by Kloss and pinpoints the limitations in this hypothesis: 1) Kloss confined his focus to only formal policies; 2) Kloss was concerned with only voluntary immigrants; and 3) Kloss didn't explore the unofficial pressures at work. Then after the discussion of non-formal language policies, Wiley scrutinizes the US policies toward respectively native Indians and European immigrants. Regarding the Indians, the US policy went through appeasement, removal, and coercive domestication. And the aim of its language policy was deculturation through behavioral assimilation, but not structural integration. In contrast, the emphasis on the use of English in the US policy toward European immigrants was motivated by "both behavioral assimilation and structural incorporation of peoples that were deemed worthy of amalgamation" (p. 80). The paper concludes that throughout the US history there has always been the pressure of linguistic assimilation, be it explicit or implicit. Furthermore, language has always been exploited as a means of social control. Robert Phillipson's contribution to this volume, English in the New World Order: Variations on a Theme of Linguistic Imperialism and "World" English (Chapter Six), mostly revolves its discussion round three books - David Crystal's English as a Global Language, Post-imperial English: Status Change in Former British and American Colonies edited by Fishman et al., and David Graddol's The Future of English?. His comments on these books are that "Crystal regards English as a panacea, for Fishman et al it is a more or less mixed blessing, and Graddol tells the jury to go away and think - but one suspects that the jury is predominantly white, western and male" (p. 104). In this paper Phillipson also discusses some other issues, for instance, in Section Two he problematizes some commonly used concepts, such as "world language", and "language spread". Phillipson also talks about English linguistic imperialism and the inequality in communication created by the use of English on international occasions. In relation to the latter issue Phillipson holds that Esperanto serves better than English for the purpose of international communication. And the paper concludes by calling for the inclusion of "a linguistic human rights approach" in the formation of language policy (p. 106). Chapter Seven, English, Politics, Ideology: From Colonial Celebration to Postcolonial Performativity, is again contributed by Alastair Pennycook. In this chapter Pennycook first discusses the dual interpretations of the ideological implications of the spread of English. According to Pennycook, "ideological" means "political" on the one hand, and on the other, it implies that "English is the purveyor of thoughts, cultures and ideologies that affect the ways in which people think and behave" (p. 108). Next Pennycook examines these two interpretations in relation to six different frameworks for understanding the global position of English, viz., colonial celebration, laissez-faire liberalism, language ecology, linguistic imperialism, linguistic human rights, and postcolonial performativity. For instance, "colonial celebration" views the spread of English as intrinsically beneficial to the world. Regarding the ideological implication of the spread, this understanding does not acknowledge the existence of political significance, but it does recognize the "discursive effects" of English and deems these effects to be good. Another instance is about "postcolonial performativity", which explores how English is applied for the purpose of, e.g., resistance and appropriation. Concerning the ideological implication of the spread of English, this perspective provides "a political standpoint both on the structure of linguistic imperialism and on the agency of resistance" (p. 118). It also suggests that although English may exert cultural influence, yet there is no absolute or necessary effect. In Chapter Eight, Negotiating Ideologies though English: Strategies from the Periphery", A. Suresh Canagarajah first tells a story to illustrate the point that local people can adopt strategies to negotiate ideologies through English. Canagarajah then demonstrates how people from the Periphery used different strategies in different historical contexts to achieve their ends. In the period of colonization, English was used to represent a local discourse, which is termed the "strategy of discursive appropriation" (p. 125). This strategy echoes the distinguishing of medium from message (Kachru 1998). In the decolonization stage, new meaning was provided for the dominant English discourse to suit the local interests and ideologies, which is called the "strategy of reinterpretation" (p. 125). After independence, English was used by the new elite to strengthen their power, which is termed the "strategy of accommodation" (p. 127). And in the present day Sri Lanka, people have mingled the vernacular with English to form a system of hybrid codes to achieve symbolic purposes. In this case not only the English discourse, but also its sign system has been contextualized, so it is termed the "strategy of linguistic appropriation" (p. 128). Chapter Nine, Ideology and Policy in the Politics of the English Language in North India, is contributed by Selma Sonntag. In this chapter Sonntag demonstrates how different language policies can be motivated by analogous ideologies. Specifically, both pro-English and anti-English leftist advocates in North India are attempting "to re-appropriate vernaculars as part of an anti-elite project" (p. 134). On the other hand, the ideologies of the left and right are fundamentally different even if they formed temporary alliances on certain language policies. In so doing Sonntag argues that while ideologies inform language policies, they do not decide them. Sonntag also remarks that language polices, which are applications of ideologies, are dependent on the changing social contexts. In other words, they are more adapting. In contrast, "Ideologies, although not necessarily consistent, are more persistent" (p. 134). In the last chapter in this collection, which is titled Mixed Motives: Ideological Elements in the Support for English in South Africa, Stanley Ridge shows how "both an emphasis on English and an emphasis on African languages can be racist and dehumanizing. By the same token, both can be liberatory and affirmative" (p. 164). This once again echoes the theme that different language policies may share the same underlying ideology. Ridge also notes that English was associated with earlier segregationist social policies, but it is today linked with the people's aspiration to a common society. He further points out that although the Constitution has named eleven languages as official languages, such policies by themselves cannot change people's linguistic behavior within a short period of time. Many other factors will also help to determine the role of English and other national languages in South Africa. EVALUATION This volume makes an invaluable contribution to the field of language planning and policy in particular, and language in society in general. Each of the ten papers in this collection presents fascinating and complex discussions of the interaction among ideologies, politics, and language policies. The collection also boasts its breadth in terms of both theoretical and geographical representation. In the latter case, areas and countries investigated include Africa, North America, Asia, Australia, and Europe. In addition, a variety of research methodologies are employed, ranging from macro-sociopolitical and structural examination to postmodern approaches. In a word, this collection will make an excellent reading to students of language policy studies and sociolinguistics. It is understandable that this volume collects studies that almost exclusively deal with language policies regarding English in the Inner Circle and Outer Circle countries or regions (Kachru 1985), given that English is predominantly used in these areas. Even so, it might be advantageous if this volume also collects studies that focus on the English language policy in the Expanding Circle countries (ibid.), which are still scant at present, as far as I know, but promise to be a fruitful sub-field in language policy studies in light of the increasing use of English in these countries. Certain standpoints expressed in this volume might also be open to further discussions. For instance, on the basis that only a small fraction of the population actually speaks English in the world, Phillipson argues that "terms like 'English as a world language' grossly misrepresent the reality of the communication experience of most of the world's population" (P. 89). I suspect that when the author first used this term, what he or she had in mind is something like the important role that English plays in international communication or the enormous number of countries in the world where English is used, rather than the absolute number of people that use English. Phillipson also hints that Esperanto, rather than English, may be a "more efficient and equitable solution to some problems of international communication or to making foreign language learning in schools more effective" (p. 97). "Efficient" it might be, given the simple, and regular grammar of Esperanto. But it may not be a more equitable solution. For one thing, Esperanto is not a language that draws its element from every language in the world. For instance, its vocabulary consists of roots common to the chief EUROPEAN languages. Consequently, certain people are still in disadvantages in using this language. And Esperanto is not a "democratic" language as the author claims (p. 98). REFERENCES Kachru, Braj. (1985). "Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English Language in the outer circle." In R. Quirk et al., eds. English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. London: Cambridge University Press. 11-30. Kachru, Braj. (1998). World Englishes and culture wars. Paper presented at the Sir Edward Youde Memorial Fund Lecture. The University of Hong Kong: Hong Kong. Phillipson, R and T. Skutnabb-Kangas. (1996). "English only worldwide or language ecology?" TESOL Quarterly 30(3): 429-52. ABOUT THE REVIEWER Liwei Gao is currently working toward his Ph.D. in Linguistics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His research interests are sociolinguistics and Chinese linguistics.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue