Autoria: Vitória Guedes and Iuri Santiago
In the complex set of factors of global communication, the concept of Linguistic Imperialism (Robert Phillipson, 1992) refers to the dominance of one language over others, imposed on speakers through education, cultural preeminence, etc. This phenomenon often arises through historical processes such as colonization — a process by which a foreign power establishes control over a territory, its resources and its population — and imperialism — a government system that seeks to expand and dominate weaker countries from an economic, political, administrative, cultural point of view, etc (Phillipson, 1992). These processes are central to understanding the power dynamics in linguistic imperialism, as they provide the historical context in which dominant languages were systematically imposed on subjugated populations. To further demonstrate this it’s important to point out that the colonization period was marked by severe brutality and exploitation, as European powers imposed control over vast territories, often through violent means and oppressive regimes (Loomba, 2005).
During colonial rule, colonizers instituted educational systems that favored their languages, while denying indigenous spheres. Official vernacular policies enforced the colonizer's idioms in administration, law, and commerce, marginalizing local ones and making proficiency in the dominant speech a prerequisite for economic and social mobility (Phillipson, 1992). In this regard, Phillipson challenges us to confront the inequalities, injustices, and hierarchies perpetuated by language ranking and invites us to contemplate pathways towards communicative equity and inclusivity.
In essence, language has served as a tool for maintaining power, stifling opposition, and reinforcing hierarchical structures (Ostler, 2006). As an illustration, The British Empire's imposition of English across its colonies exemplifies this phenomenon. The 1536 Act of Union with Wales demonstrates how forced language and culture was for the Welsh — English became the language of law, government, and education. This policy, coupled with social stigma and economic incentives, led to the erosion of Welsh cultural identity and traditions (Jenkins, 1997). Similarly, the Marquis of Pombal mandated Portuguese in Brazil during the 18th century, enforcing it through the “Diretório dos Índios” — set of laws enacted by the Portuguese Crown in 1757 under the influence of the Marquis of Pombal (MARANHÃO e PARÁ, 1757) — which restricted the use of indigenous tongues and aimed to assimilate native populations into Portuguese culture. His reforms included the expulsion of the Jesuits, who had previously allowed indigenous languages in their educational missions, thus centralizing control over both language and education (Monteiro, 1994). Pombal’s policies were not only about linguistic uniformity but also about consolidating political and economic power by disrupting local authority structures and integrating indigenous peoples into the colonial economy as laborers, under a unified administrative framework, furthermore exemplifying how colonial policies of linguistic dominance were integral to broader imperial strategies of control and exploitation, demonstrating the profound impact of language on social and political power dynamics.
Meanwhile, with Europe's economic growth in the 14th century, the colonial venture extended its reach beyond territorial conquests, missionary pursuits and cultural institutions (Robinson, 2006). In this sense, great economies, blinded by their endless seek for power, are responsible for the genocide of Indigenous people and the erasure of entire cultures and traditions (Phillipson, 1992). Eventually, French emerged as the lingua franca — an idiom adopted by a multilingual group of people, according to Lourenço et al. (2014) —, fostering the notion of inherent superiority intrinsic to the language and making dialects that deviated from the French syntax be perceived as illogical and inadequate (Phillipson, 1992). Additionally, Phillipson (1992) brings up these historical events aiming to provoke thoughts by pointing out facts that are often misunderstood and out of society's focus. The author seeks to demonstrate how and why certain languages are more prominent in the international scenario than others, and how this is normalized and seen as harmless by the majority, emphasizing that the will of those who manipulate is to guarantee their success without making it noticeable for those who are being manipulated.
Consequently, the premise that linguistic imperialism extends beyond historical context and continues to perpetuate inequality is further explored in Phillipson’s work. Furthermore, the monolingual ideology — the belief that a single language should be the norm and the only language used in a particular context, society or nation (Ricento, 2015) — was subsequently exported to settler colonies, territories where foreign settlers migrate in large numbers to establish a permanent presence, often displacing or marginalizing indigenous populations. The article also demonstrates how this imbalance is not merely accidental but rather a deliberate consequence of systemic biases and entrenched beliefs.
Also, the role of international institutions in perpetuating linguistic imperialism is another critical aspect, with the example of the financial support provided by the World Bank to educational institutions, which has historically played a significant role in shaping educational policies in developing countries by providing financial support (Phillipson 1992). This preference for imperial languages can be seen as a continuation of colonial-era tactics that used linguistic dominance to control and integrate colonies. Today, these institutions often tie financial support to the adoption of global languages, undermining native idioms and perpetuating colonial hierarchies. This practice reinforces linguistic and cultural inequalities, maintaining power imbalances rooted in colonial history (Phillipson 1992). By way of example of this concept, President Theodore Roosevelt's proclamation of English as the sole language of the United States encapsulates the coercive measures employed to enforce linguistic hegemony. According to Roosevelt (1919), "We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language…".
While history unveils the foundations of societal frameworks, it's imperative to recognize that these structures persist and evolve, shaping contemporary manifestations of linguistic imperialism. The author astutely illuminates how this phenomenon is exemplified by the widespread adoption of English in global academia and international business, while effectively excluding non-English speakers from fully participating in these domains. Based on this analysis, we can articulate that the necessity for non-native speakers to publish in English to gain academic recognition points to the hegemonic status of the idiom, while other languages in the scholarly community are undervalued. For instance, more than half of the population of Singapore are now English speakers and see the Western idiom as their home language. As a result, to reduce the influence of English, governments from all over the globe are now implementing prevention measures, such as the Declaration on Nordic Language Policy, that seek to reinforce the importance of their native speech (Phillipson, 1992).
In summary, the strong use of English and other predominant languages in the international scene is a consequence of the multiple phases of colonization that occurred in the past, resulting in the partial obliteration of the diverse cultural heritage of numerous native communities, as their unique traditions, languages, and ways of life were systematically undermined and replaced by the dominant culture. The intention behind this analysis is to acknowledge the reality and peril of Linguistic Imperialism, as well as to help identify the injustices and discriminatory practices against other languages and cultures.
References
ACEMOGLU, D. & JOHNSON, S. ROBINSON, J. The Rise of Europe: Atlantic Trade, Institutional Change and Economic Growth. Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2002. Acesso em: 04 Jun. 2024.
BERNARDO, C. & FLORES, A. & LOURENÇO, M. & SOUZA, A. CONCEITOS DE LÍNGUA ESTRANGEIRA, LÍNGUA SEGUNDA, LÍNGUA ADICIONAL, LÍNGUA DE HERANÇA E LÍNGUA TRANSNACIONAL. Rio de Janeiro, 2014. Acesso em: 06 Jun. 2024.
BRASIL. [Diretório dos Índios (1757)]. Diretório que se deve observar nas Povoações dos Índios do Pará, e Maranhão, enquanto Sua Majestade não mandar o contrário. Maranhão e Pará, 1757.
Dinamarca. The Declaration on a Nordic Language Policy. Copenhagen, Dinamarca: Nordic Council of Ministers for Education and Research, 2006. Acesso em: 06 Jun. 2024.
JENKINS, Geraint H. The Welsh Language Before The Industrial Revolution. Cardiff, Wales: University of Wales Press, 2002. Acesso em: 04 Jun. 2024.
LOOMBA, A. Colonialism/Postcolonialism: the NEW CRITICAL IDIOM. Oxfordshire, England: Routledge, 2005. Acesso em: 04 Jun. 2024.
MAGDOFF, Harry & NOWELL, Charles E. Western Colonialism. Britannica, 1998. Disponível em: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Western-colonialism. Acesso em: 04 Jun. 2024.
MONTEIRO, J. NEGROS DA TERRA: Índios e bandeirantes nas origens de São Paulo. São Paulo, Brasil: Companhia das Letras, 1994. Acesso em: 09 Jun. 2024.
OSTLER, N. Empires of The World: A Language History of The World. Nova Iorque, United States: Harper Perennial, 2006. Acesso em: 05 Jun. 2024.
PHILLIPSON, R. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1992. Acesso em: 29 Mai. 2024.
RICENTO, T. Language Policy and Political Economy: English in a Global Context. Oxford, England: Oxford University, 2015. Acesso em: 05 Jun. 2024.
ROOSEVELT, T. Letters: The Day of Armageddon. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1954. Acesso em: 05 Jun. 2024.
KUMAR, R. Language Studies in India: Cognition, Structure, Variation. New York, United States: Springer, 2023. Acesso em: 05 Jun. 2024.
Comments