Robert Phillipson is an Emeritus Professor at Copenhagen Business School, Denmark. His main books are Linguistic imperialism (Oxford University Press, 1992), English-only Europe? Challenging language policy (Routledge 2003), and Linguistic imperialism continued (Routledge, 2009). He has also edited books on language rights and multilingual education, including Why English? Confronting the Hydra (with Bunce, Rapatahana, and Tupas, Multilingual Matters 2016) and Language Rights (four volumes, with Skutnabb-Kangas, Routledge, 2016). He was awarded the UNESCO Linguapax prize in 2010.
Jan Blommaert’s book articulates a powerful set of abstractions and generalizations that expand t... more Jan Blommaert’s book articulates a powerful set of abstractions and generalizations that expand the conceptual portfolio of sociolinguistics. He adresses the impact of change and migration on societies and languages by presenting rich micro-sociolinguistic data, much of it from Africa and anglophone Western countries, so as to theorize a ‘sociolinguistics of mobile resources’. Blommaert flags his liberal credentials by claiming a concern for inequality and addressing ‘the defining topic of globalization: English in the world’ (p. 21), although coverage of inequality is delayed until the sixth of seven chapters. His aim, even if articulated as ‘critical’ sociolinguistics, is to improve the research paradigm rather than to show how inequality can be reversed. This article reviews Blommaert’s book, and demonstrates how his project of creating a new understanding of the sociolinguistics of globalization could have been more successful if it had built on insights from an approach that he repeatedly distances himself from, namely linguistic imperialism and language rights (LILR). Chapter 1 outlines the overall thrust of the book, and briefly presents globalization and the strengths and weaknesses of scholars who have written comparable works grappling with sociolinguistic change. Fairclough is seen as being ahistorical and making false connections from discourse extracts to globalization processes; Calvet is seen as only concerned with macro-level trends, and as uncritical in assuming the validity of traditional language labels; Pennycook is praised for querying terms like ‘language’ and ‘culture’ and championing flow in hip-hop culture, the convergence of the global and local, but is seen as ignoring history and multilevel complexity. Chapter 2 presents examples to draw out traits of varying sociolinguistic scales of indexicality and of polycentricity that relate to domain, place, time, and semiotic style. This is concrete and illuminating, despite the density of abstraction. However Blommaert falsely states that an LILR approach entails ‘a monoglot strategy’, seeing languages as ‘static’, and that the advance of one ‘big’ language necessitates that ‘small indigenous languages will “die”’ (pp. 43–47). In fact all linguistic human rights declarations proclaim the right to learn both the mother tongue and a dominant national language and others. In addition Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) has an entire section in her book (pp. 365–374) dealing with ‘Language death and linguistic genocide/linguicide – two paradigms’, where she demonstrates that a language death approach is historically and conceptually invalid. The next section of Chapter 2 consists of detailed coverage of accent change through internet courses, both for new arrivals in the USA and for Indians seeking employment in call centres. Blommaert claims that what is involved here is ‘accent and not language’ (p. 59), which is puzzling when he argues for a concentration on ‘registers, genres, repertoires and styles’ (p. 59), and when what is involved is internalizing US English norms of pronunciation, lexis, discourse and pragmatics. His assertion that ‘languages’ do not exist is untenable when Asian call centre employees have to take on (‘consubstantiate’) a new, foreign persona in English in what he rightly describes as ‘this brave new world of language’ (p. 61). He ignores the working conditions of such people, in the sweatshops of the modern world, so described by
This is a response to Makoni's article in the Journal of Multicultural Discourses, published in t... more This is a response to Makoni's article in the Journal of Multicultural Discourses, published in the same number of the journal. It demonstrates many of the weaknesses and errors in his text, and documents how language rights can be analysed in a more scholarly way.
Summary The article analyses whether the expansion of English is adding to linguistic repertoires... more Summary The article analyses whether the expansion of English is adding to linguistic repertoires, or whether a process of linguistic capital dispossession of national languages is taking place. It explores the role that discourses of ‘global English’ and of English as a ‘lingua franca’ play in processes of global and regional European integration. It considers whether the linguistic capital of all languages can be made productive when in much of Europe there is a marked downgrading of the learning of foreign languages other than English, alongside the continued neglect of many minority languages. Language pedagogy and language policy need to be situated within wider political, social and economic contexts. EU schemes for research collaboration and student mobility are of limited help in maintaining linguistic diversity. The Bologna process furthers European integration but intensifies the hegemony of English. Nordic universities are moving into bilingual education, combining Englis...
“European” identities may be politonymic, toponymic, ethnomyic or linguonymic (Bromley 1984). Eac... more “European” identities may be politonymic, toponymic, ethnomyic or linguonymic (Bromley 1984). Each dimension may affect whether migrant minorities are treated as “European”, and influence their schooling, integration and rights. Treatment and terminology vary in different states and periods of migration. However, the position for immigrated minorities is that they are still largely seen as workers rather than human beings with equal rights. Lack of success in schools is blamed on the migrants themselves rather than the educational system. This construction of migrants as being deficient is parallel to educational practice which falls within a UN definition of linguistic genocide, and contributes to mis-education. If current efforts in international bodies to codify educational linguistic human rights were to lead to greater support for minorities, this could assist in a redefinition of national identities and a reduction of racism and conflict. “Europäische” Identitäten können “politonym,” “toponym,” “ethnonym” oder “linguonym” sein (Bromely 1984). Jede Gruppe kann darauf Einfluß haben, ob Migrantenminderheiten als “Europäer” behandelt werden und Schulwesen, Integration und Rechte respektiert werden. Noch werden immigrierte Minderheiten jedoch weitgehend als Arbeiter und nicht als Menschen mit gleichen Rechten angesehen. Schulische Mißerfolge werden eher ihnen selbst als dem Bildungssystem angelastet. Diese Darstellung von Migranten als defizitär entspricht derjenigen Handlungsweise im Bildungsbereich, welche unter die Kategorie des “linguistischen Genozids” definiert wird und welche zu einer “mis-education” beiträgt. Wenn gegenwärtige Bemühungen internationaler Gremien um die Kodifizierung der Rechte der Menschen auf ihre Sprache Minderheiten unterstützen, könnte dies zu einer Umdefinition nationaler Identitäten und einer Reduzierung von Rassismus und Konflikten führen. Les identités européennes peuvent être “politonymiques,” “toponymiques,” “ethnonymiques” ou “linguonymiques” (Bromley 1984). Selon leurs affinités avec chacun de ces domaines, les personnes appartenant aux minorités migrantes sont considérées ou non comme européennes, et cela influence leur scolarité, leur intégration et leurs droits. La façon dont ces personnes sont traitées et la terminologie évoluent selon les différentes étapes et périodes de migration. Mais le plus souvent, les minorités immigrantes sont encore davantage considérées comme des travailleurs que comme des personnes bénéficiant des mêmes droits. Les échecs scolaires sont mis sur le compte des migrants eux-mêmes et non sur celui du système éducatif. Le fait que l'on considère les migrants comme inférieurs se reflète dans une pratique éducative que les Nations Unies appellent “génocide linguistique” et se traduit par une éducation inadéquate. Si les efforts actuels de la part des institutions internationales pour codifier les droits de l'homme en matière de pédagogie linguistique apportaient un plus grand soutien aux minorités, cela contribuerait à donner une rédéfinition des identités nationales et à réduire le racisme et les conflits. Las identidades de los Europeos pueden ser “politonímicas”, “toponímicas”, “etnomímicas” o “linguonímicas” (Bromley 1984). Cada una de estas dimensiones puede influir en que minorías de inmigrantes scan tratadas de “Europeos” y con ello en su educación escolar, en su integración y en sus derechos. El tratamiento y la terminología varían conforme a los períodos y las circunstancias de la inmigración. No obstante, la posición que se adopta frente a las minorías inmigrantes es la de considerarlos en gran medida como trabajadores y no tanto como seres humanos de iguales derechos. La falta de éxito en los estudios se atribuye a los inmigrantes mismos, más que al sistema de educación. Esta consideración de los inmigrantes como inferiores es paralela a una práctica de la educación que cae bajo una definición de la Naciones Unidas de genocidio lingüístico y contribuye a la educación deficiente. Si los esfuerzos actuales que las organizaciones internacionales ponen en codificar los derechos humanos lingüísticos de la educación estuvieran destinados a brindar un mayor apoyo a las minorías, esto podría ayudar a definir con mayor precisión las identidades nacionales y a reducir el racismo y los conflictos. “Европейская” самобытность может быть определена В терминах политики, этническои принадлежности и языка. Каждое из этих измерений может влиять на то, рассматриваются ли мигрирующие меньшинства как “европейцы”, а также на их учебные достижения, интеграцю и права. И обращение с ними, и терминология варьируются в раэличных государствах и в раэличные периоды миграции. Однако положение мигрирующих меньшинств состоит в том, что они рассматриваются скорее как работники, а не как человеческие существа с равными правами. Слабые учебные достижения рассматриваются как вина самих мигрантов, а не системы обраэования. Если предпринимаемые сейчсс усилия международных организаций кодифицировать образовательно-л ингвистические права человека приведут к большей поддержке меньшинств, это поможет более точному определению национальной принадлежности и уменьщит проявления расизма и конфликтов.
ABSTRACT An analysis with European implications of whether the expansion of English-medium educat... more ABSTRACT An analysis with European implications of whether the expansion of English-medium education in India is restricting the evolution of Indian languages
“European” identities may be politonymic, toponymic, ethnomyic or linguonymic (Bromley 1984). Eac... more “European” identities may be politonymic, toponymic, ethnomyic or linguonymic (Bromley 1984). Each dimension may affect whether migrant minorities are treated as “European”, and influence their schooling, integration and rights. Treatment and terminology vary in different states and periods of migration. However, the position for immigrated minorities is that they are still largely seen as workers rather than human beings with equal rights. Lack of success in schools is blamed on the migrants themselves rather than the educational system. This construction of migrants as being deficient is parallel to educational practice which falls within a UN definition of linguistic genocide, and contributes to mis-education. If current efforts in international bodies to codify educational linguistic human rights were to lead to greater support for minorities, this could assist in a redefinition of national identities and a reduction of racism and conflict. “Europäische” Identitäten können “politonym,” “toponym,” “ethnonym” oder “linguonym” sein (Bromely 1984). Jede Gruppe kann darauf Einfluß haben, ob Migrantenminderheiten als “Europäer” behandelt werden und Schulwesen, Integration und Rechte respektiert werden. Noch werden immigrierte Minderheiten jedoch weitgehend als Arbeiter und nicht als Menschen mit gleichen Rechten angesehen. Schulische Mißerfolge werden eher ihnen selbst als dem Bildungssystem angelastet. Diese Darstellung von Migranten als defizitär entspricht derjenigen Handlungsweise im Bildungsbereich, welche unter die Kategorie des “linguistischen Genozids” definiert wird und welche zu einer “mis-education” beiträgt. Wenn gegenwärtige Bemühungen internationaler Gremien um die Kodifizierung der Rechte der Menschen auf ihre Sprache Minderheiten unterstützen, könnte dies zu einer Umdefinition nationaler Identitäten und einer Reduzierung von Rassismus und Konflikten führen. Les identités européennes peuvent être “politonymiques,” “toponymiques,” “ethnonymiques” ou “linguonymiques” (Bromley 1984). Selon leurs affinités avec chacun de ces domaines, les personnes appartenant aux minorités migrantes sont considérées ou non comme européennes, et cela influence leur scolarité, leur intégration et leurs droits. La façon dont ces personnes sont traitées et la terminologie évoluent selon les différentes étapes et périodes de migration. Mais le plus souvent, les minorités immigrantes sont encore davantage considérées comme des travailleurs que comme des personnes bénéficiant des mêmes droits. Les échecs scolaires sont mis sur le compte des migrants eux-mêmes et non sur celui du système éducatif. Le fait que l'on considère les migrants comme inférieurs se reflète dans une pratique éducative que les Nations Unies appellent “génocide linguistique” et se traduit par une éducation inadéquate. Si les efforts actuels de la part des institutions internationales pour codifier les droits de l'homme en matière de pédagogie linguistique apportaient un plus grand soutien aux minorités, cela contribuerait à donner une rédéfinition des identités nationales et à réduire le racisme et les conflits. Las identidades de los Europeos pueden ser “politonímicas”, “toponímicas”, “etnomímicas” o “linguonímicas” (Bromley 1984). Cada una de estas dimensiones puede influir en que minorías de inmigrantes scan tratadas de “Europeos” y con ello en su educación escolar, en su integración y en sus derechos. El tratamiento y la terminología varían conforme a los períodos y las circunstancias de la inmigración. No obstante, la posición que se adopta frente a las minorías inmigrantes es la de considerarlos en gran medida como trabajadores y no tanto como seres humanos de iguales derechos. La falta de éxito en los estudios se atribuye a los inmigrantes mismos, más que al sistema de educación. Esta consideración de los inmigrantes como inferiores es paralela a una práctica de la educación que cae bajo una definición de la Naciones Unidas de genocidio lingüístico y contribuye a la educación deficiente. Si los esfuerzos actuales que las organizaciones internacionales ponen en codificar los derechos humanos lingüísticos de la educación estuvieran destinados a brindar un mayor apoyo a las minorías, esto podría ayudar a definir con mayor precisión las identidades nacionales y a reducir el racismo y los conflictos. “Европейская” самобытность может быть определена В терминах политики, этническои принадлежности и языка. Каждое из этих измерений может влиять на то, рассматриваются ли мигрирующие меньшинства как “европейцы”, а также на их учебные достижения, интеграцю и права. И обращение с ними, и терминология варьируются в раэличных государствах и в раэличные периоды миграции. Однако положение мигрирующих меньшинств состоит в том, что они рассматриваются скорее как работники, а не как человеческие существа с равными правами. Слабые учебные достижения рассматриваются как вина самих мигрантов, а не системы обраэования. Если предпринимаемые сейчсс усилия международных организаций кодифицировать образовательно-л ингвистические права человека приведут к большей поддержке меньшинств, это поможет более точному определению национальной принадлежности и уменьщит проявления расизма и конфликтов.
Jan Blommaert’s book articulates a powerful set of abstractions and generalizations that expand t... more Jan Blommaert’s book articulates a powerful set of abstractions and generalizations that expand the conceptual portfolio of sociolinguistics. He adresses the impact of change and migration on societies and languages by presenting rich micro-sociolinguistic data, much of it from Africa and anglophone Western countries, so as to theorize a ‘sociolinguistics of mobile resources’. Blommaert flags his liberal credentials by claiming a concern for inequality and addressing ‘the defining topic of globalization: English in the world’ (p. 21), although coverage of inequality is delayed until the sixth of seven chapters. His aim, even if articulated as ‘critical’ sociolinguistics, is to improve the research paradigm rather than to show how inequality can be reversed. This article reviews Blommaert’s book, and demonstrates how his project of creating a new understanding of the sociolinguistics of globalization could have been more successful if it had built on insights from an approach that he repeatedly distances himself from, namely linguistic imperialism and language rights (LILR). Chapter 1 outlines the overall thrust of the book, and briefly presents globalization and the strengths and weaknesses of scholars who have written comparable works grappling with sociolinguistic change. Fairclough is seen as being ahistorical and making false connections from discourse extracts to globalization processes; Calvet is seen as only concerned with macro-level trends, and as uncritical in assuming the validity of traditional language labels; Pennycook is praised for querying terms like ‘language’ and ‘culture’ and championing flow in hip-hop culture, the convergence of the global and local, but is seen as ignoring history and multilevel complexity. Chapter 2 presents examples to draw out traits of varying sociolinguistic scales of indexicality and of polycentricity that relate to domain, place, time, and semiotic style. This is concrete and illuminating, despite the density of abstraction. However Blommaert falsely states that an LILR approach entails ‘a monoglot strategy’, seeing languages as ‘static’, and that the advance of one ‘big’ language necessitates that ‘small indigenous languages will “die”’ (pp. 43–47). In fact all linguistic human rights declarations proclaim the right to learn both the mother tongue and a dominant national language and others. In addition Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) has an entire section in her book (pp. 365–374) dealing with ‘Language death and linguistic genocide/linguicide – two paradigms’, where she demonstrates that a language death approach is historically and conceptually invalid. The next section of Chapter 2 consists of detailed coverage of accent change through internet courses, both for new arrivals in the USA and for Indians seeking employment in call centres. Blommaert claims that what is involved here is ‘accent and not language’ (p. 59), which is puzzling when he argues for a concentration on ‘registers, genres, repertoires and styles’ (p. 59), and when what is involved is internalizing US English norms of pronunciation, lexis, discourse and pragmatics. His assertion that ‘languages’ do not exist is untenable when Asian call centre employees have to take on (‘consubstantiate’) a new, foreign persona in English in what he rightly describes as ‘this brave new world of language’ (p. 61). He ignores the working conditions of such people, in the sweatshops of the modern world, so described by
This is a response to Makoni's article in the Journal of Multicultural Discourses, published in t... more This is a response to Makoni's article in the Journal of Multicultural Discourses, published in the same number of the journal. It demonstrates many of the weaknesses and errors in his text, and documents how language rights can be analysed in a more scholarly way.
Summary The article analyses whether the expansion of English is adding to linguistic repertoires... more Summary The article analyses whether the expansion of English is adding to linguistic repertoires, or whether a process of linguistic capital dispossession of national languages is taking place. It explores the role that discourses of ‘global English’ and of English as a ‘lingua franca’ play in processes of global and regional European integration. It considers whether the linguistic capital of all languages can be made productive when in much of Europe there is a marked downgrading of the learning of foreign languages other than English, alongside the continued neglect of many minority languages. Language pedagogy and language policy need to be situated within wider political, social and economic contexts. EU schemes for research collaboration and student mobility are of limited help in maintaining linguistic diversity. The Bologna process furthers European integration but intensifies the hegemony of English. Nordic universities are moving into bilingual education, combining Englis...
“European” identities may be politonymic, toponymic, ethnomyic or linguonymic (Bromley 1984). Eac... more “European” identities may be politonymic, toponymic, ethnomyic or linguonymic (Bromley 1984). Each dimension may affect whether migrant minorities are treated as “European”, and influence their schooling, integration and rights. Treatment and terminology vary in different states and periods of migration. However, the position for immigrated minorities is that they are still largely seen as workers rather than human beings with equal rights. Lack of success in schools is blamed on the migrants themselves rather than the educational system. This construction of migrants as being deficient is parallel to educational practice which falls within a UN definition of linguistic genocide, and contributes to mis-education. If current efforts in international bodies to codify educational linguistic human rights were to lead to greater support for minorities, this could assist in a redefinition of national identities and a reduction of racism and conflict. “Europäische” Identitäten können “politonym,” “toponym,” “ethnonym” oder “linguonym” sein (Bromely 1984). Jede Gruppe kann darauf Einfluß haben, ob Migrantenminderheiten als “Europäer” behandelt werden und Schulwesen, Integration und Rechte respektiert werden. Noch werden immigrierte Minderheiten jedoch weitgehend als Arbeiter und nicht als Menschen mit gleichen Rechten angesehen. Schulische Mißerfolge werden eher ihnen selbst als dem Bildungssystem angelastet. Diese Darstellung von Migranten als defizitär entspricht derjenigen Handlungsweise im Bildungsbereich, welche unter die Kategorie des “linguistischen Genozids” definiert wird und welche zu einer “mis-education” beiträgt. Wenn gegenwärtige Bemühungen internationaler Gremien um die Kodifizierung der Rechte der Menschen auf ihre Sprache Minderheiten unterstützen, könnte dies zu einer Umdefinition nationaler Identitäten und einer Reduzierung von Rassismus und Konflikten führen. Les identités européennes peuvent être “politonymiques,” “toponymiques,” “ethnonymiques” ou “linguonymiques” (Bromley 1984). Selon leurs affinités avec chacun de ces domaines, les personnes appartenant aux minorités migrantes sont considérées ou non comme européennes, et cela influence leur scolarité, leur intégration et leurs droits. La façon dont ces personnes sont traitées et la terminologie évoluent selon les différentes étapes et périodes de migration. Mais le plus souvent, les minorités immigrantes sont encore davantage considérées comme des travailleurs que comme des personnes bénéficiant des mêmes droits. Les échecs scolaires sont mis sur le compte des migrants eux-mêmes et non sur celui du système éducatif. Le fait que l'on considère les migrants comme inférieurs se reflète dans une pratique éducative que les Nations Unies appellent “génocide linguistique” et se traduit par une éducation inadéquate. Si les efforts actuels de la part des institutions internationales pour codifier les droits de l'homme en matière de pédagogie linguistique apportaient un plus grand soutien aux minorités, cela contribuerait à donner une rédéfinition des identités nationales et à réduire le racisme et les conflits. Las identidades de los Europeos pueden ser “politonímicas”, “toponímicas”, “etnomímicas” o “linguonímicas” (Bromley 1984). Cada una de estas dimensiones puede influir en que minorías de inmigrantes scan tratadas de “Europeos” y con ello en su educación escolar, en su integración y en sus derechos. El tratamiento y la terminología varían conforme a los períodos y las circunstancias de la inmigración. No obstante, la posición que se adopta frente a las minorías inmigrantes es la de considerarlos en gran medida como trabajadores y no tanto como seres humanos de iguales derechos. La falta de éxito en los estudios se atribuye a los inmigrantes mismos, más que al sistema de educación. Esta consideración de los inmigrantes como inferiores es paralela a una práctica de la educación que cae bajo una definición de la Naciones Unidas de genocidio lingüístico y contribuye a la educación deficiente. Si los esfuerzos actuales que las organizaciones internacionales ponen en codificar los derechos humanos lingüísticos de la educación estuvieran destinados a brindar un mayor apoyo a las minorías, esto podría ayudar a definir con mayor precisión las identidades nacionales y a reducir el racismo y los conflictos. “Европейская” самобытность может быть определена В терминах политики, этническои принадлежности и языка. Каждое из этих измерений может влиять на то, рассматриваются ли мигрирующие меньшинства как “европейцы”, а также на их учебные достижения, интеграцю и права. И обращение с ними, и терминология варьируются в раэличных государствах и в раэличные периоды миграции. Однако положение мигрирующих меньшинств состоит в том, что они рассматриваются скорее как работники, а не как человеческие существа с равными правами. Слабые учебные достижения рассматриваются как вина самих мигрантов, а не системы обраэования. Если предпринимаемые сейчсс усилия международных организаций кодифицировать образовательно-л ингвистические права человека приведут к большей поддержке меньшинств, это поможет более точному определению национальной принадлежности и уменьщит проявления расизма и конфликтов.
ABSTRACT An analysis with European implications of whether the expansion of English-medium educat... more ABSTRACT An analysis with European implications of whether the expansion of English-medium education in India is restricting the evolution of Indian languages
“European” identities may be politonymic, toponymic, ethnomyic or linguonymic (Bromley 1984). Eac... more “European” identities may be politonymic, toponymic, ethnomyic or linguonymic (Bromley 1984). Each dimension may affect whether migrant minorities are treated as “European”, and influence their schooling, integration and rights. Treatment and terminology vary in different states and periods of migration. However, the position for immigrated minorities is that they are still largely seen as workers rather than human beings with equal rights. Lack of success in schools is blamed on the migrants themselves rather than the educational system. This construction of migrants as being deficient is parallel to educational practice which falls within a UN definition of linguistic genocide, and contributes to mis-education. If current efforts in international bodies to codify educational linguistic human rights were to lead to greater support for minorities, this could assist in a redefinition of national identities and a reduction of racism and conflict. “Europäische” Identitäten können “politonym,” “toponym,” “ethnonym” oder “linguonym” sein (Bromely 1984). Jede Gruppe kann darauf Einfluß haben, ob Migrantenminderheiten als “Europäer” behandelt werden und Schulwesen, Integration und Rechte respektiert werden. Noch werden immigrierte Minderheiten jedoch weitgehend als Arbeiter und nicht als Menschen mit gleichen Rechten angesehen. Schulische Mißerfolge werden eher ihnen selbst als dem Bildungssystem angelastet. Diese Darstellung von Migranten als defizitär entspricht derjenigen Handlungsweise im Bildungsbereich, welche unter die Kategorie des “linguistischen Genozids” definiert wird und welche zu einer “mis-education” beiträgt. Wenn gegenwärtige Bemühungen internationaler Gremien um die Kodifizierung der Rechte der Menschen auf ihre Sprache Minderheiten unterstützen, könnte dies zu einer Umdefinition nationaler Identitäten und einer Reduzierung von Rassismus und Konflikten führen. Les identités européennes peuvent être “politonymiques,” “toponymiques,” “ethnonymiques” ou “linguonymiques” (Bromley 1984). Selon leurs affinités avec chacun de ces domaines, les personnes appartenant aux minorités migrantes sont considérées ou non comme européennes, et cela influence leur scolarité, leur intégration et leurs droits. La façon dont ces personnes sont traitées et la terminologie évoluent selon les différentes étapes et périodes de migration. Mais le plus souvent, les minorités immigrantes sont encore davantage considérées comme des travailleurs que comme des personnes bénéficiant des mêmes droits. Les échecs scolaires sont mis sur le compte des migrants eux-mêmes et non sur celui du système éducatif. Le fait que l'on considère les migrants comme inférieurs se reflète dans une pratique éducative que les Nations Unies appellent “génocide linguistique” et se traduit par une éducation inadéquate. Si les efforts actuels de la part des institutions internationales pour codifier les droits de l'homme en matière de pédagogie linguistique apportaient un plus grand soutien aux minorités, cela contribuerait à donner une rédéfinition des identités nationales et à réduire le racisme et les conflits. Las identidades de los Europeos pueden ser “politonímicas”, “toponímicas”, “etnomímicas” o “linguonímicas” (Bromley 1984). Cada una de estas dimensiones puede influir en que minorías de inmigrantes scan tratadas de “Europeos” y con ello en su educación escolar, en su integración y en sus derechos. El tratamiento y la terminología varían conforme a los períodos y las circunstancias de la inmigración. No obstante, la posición que se adopta frente a las minorías inmigrantes es la de considerarlos en gran medida como trabajadores y no tanto como seres humanos de iguales derechos. La falta de éxito en los estudios se atribuye a los inmigrantes mismos, más que al sistema de educación. Esta consideración de los inmigrantes como inferiores es paralela a una práctica de la educación que cae bajo una definición de la Naciones Unidas de genocidio lingüístico y contribuye a la educación deficiente. Si los esfuerzos actuales que las organizaciones internacionales ponen en codificar los derechos humanos lingüísticos de la educación estuvieran destinados a brindar un mayor apoyo a las minorías, esto podría ayudar a definir con mayor precisión las identidades nacionales y a reducir el racismo y los conflictos. “Европейская” самобытность может быть определена В терминах политики, этническои принадлежности и языка. Каждое из этих измерений может влиять на то, рассматриваются ли мигрирующие меньшинства как “европейцы”, а также на их учебные достижения, интеграцю и права. И обращение с ними, и терминология варьируются в раэличных государствах и в раэличные периоды миграции. Однако положение мигрирующих меньшинств состоит в том, что они рассматриваются скорее как работники, а не как человеческие существа с равными правами. Слабые учебные достижения рассматриваются как вина самих мигрантов, а не системы обраэования. Если предпринимаемые сейчсс усилия международных организаций кодифицировать образовательно-л ингвистические права человека приведут к большей поддержке меньшинств, это поможет более точному определению национальной принадлежности и уменьщит проявления расизма и конфликтов.
It is encouraging that English-medium issues in higher education are being subjected to rigorous ... more It is encouraging that English-medium issues in higher education are being subjected to rigorous critical analysis. The policies at stake are of major national importance. Of equal importance is the experience of all those personally involved, as students and university staff, and their right to quality and to the significant values that a university education stands for. Among the key variables for clarification are the linguistic and cultural characteristics of each national and institutional context, types of academic competence in specific languages, how assessment is conducted, and how university autonomy and academic freedom are guaranteed. My Foreword will mainly draw on European experience and aims at drawing out its relevance for Asian contexts. English-medium education should not be confused with employing native speakers of English. If they have been educated throughout their school and university experience entirely in their mother tongue, and have never gone through the experience of learning a foreign language to a very high level, it is unlikely that they are qualified to provide linguistically, culturally and educationally appropriate teaching in an Asian context. This happened in the colonial past, and should be avoided in the neo-imperial, neoliberal present.
Uploads
Papers by Robert Phillipson