Language, Linguicide, and Social Inequality: A Case Against Linguistic Neutrality

• In Event: Fairmont Roundtable Session Six
  In Roundtable Session: English Language Education and Students From Low-Income Backgrounds in the Indian Context: Service or Disservice? (Table 15)

Abstract

Theoretical Framework
Over the last 30 years, we began to see a rise in theories and literature promoting English as an International language (McKay, 2002; Sharifian & Jamarani, 2013), which positioned English as a neutral language where notions of native-speakerism, accentedness, and ownership of English (Widdowson, 1994) were challenged and efforts to decouple the language from the culture and norms of English-speaking countries put it in the hands of the ever-expanding multilingual users of English worldwide (Graddol, 1999; Sharifian & Jamarani, 2013). This movement has come under considerable critique in recent years where Kubota (2016) has identified complicities in this movement with the neoliberal agenda (Flores, 2013), which privileges those with certain forms of linguistic capital (Bordieu, 1991) and certain forms of intersectionalities or identity markers such as race, gender, class, ability, and age (Horner & Trimbur, 2002). As such, this presentation focuses on the primary tension which places English as a commodity for social mobility, economic upgrade, and skilled migration on the one hand and as a source of reification of power stratification, linguicide, and resulting social inequality on the other.
As the participants will see in the context of India, we see similar movements in English language education policies in ex-colonial countries in South Asia such as Pakistan and Bangladesh. China also presents an interesting case with its own colonial influence in the East-Asian region, however, English language education continues to be promoted alongside Cantonese and Mandarin Chinese even in the wake of UNESCO’s global call to recognize indigenous languages as the key to educational progression. As such, it becomes important to recognize that the field of English language education is undoubtedly “situated in a political and ideological space, in which certain beliefs about language, language speakers, cultures and language teaching and learning are produced and reproduced” (Kubota, 2014, p. 348).
Significance
Such situated constructions need to be recognized before they can be addressed in educational institutions and classrooms. The question then becomes how we can work towards reducing harm (Tuck & Yang, 2012) in the English language classroom. To begin this exploration, it would be important for English language teachers to reflect on their own positionality, intersectionalities and histories with the English language (Molina, 2020a; 2020b). In the classroom, Motha (2014) suggests the importance of English language teachers to engage in anti-racist practice where an understanding of the history of colonialism, postcolonialism and persistent ideologies surrounding the English language can serve as a lens in which to analyze institutional language policies underlying practices in the classroom. Likewise, Kubota (2014) purports the importance of critical teachers to “recognize the political, economic, linguistic, and cultural relations of power that produce and legitimate unequal Englishes and human relations” (p. 365). The presentation concludes with a delineation of persisting hegemonic ideologies of language and power that continue to infiltrate policies and practices in the field and suggests ways in which to continue to transform the field of English language education with a profound sense of critical consciousness (Molina, 2019).

Author

• Maya Kalyanpur, University of San Diego
  Presenting Author