The Hegemony of English and
Strategies for Linguistic Pluralism
Proposing the Ecology of Language Paradigm
Yukio Tsuda
One of the most important tasks that scholars ought to perform is to discover questions out of
the taken-for-granted knowledge of existing reality. The question I want to raise in this essay
concerns the use of English, which is very much taken for granted in international communication
today. Speaking from a non-English-speaking perspective, I believe the use of English should
not be taken for granted but should be examined as a problem of linguistic hegemony. It is
evident that English is the de facto language of international communication today. It is also
evident, however, that the dominance of English causes not only linguistic and communicative
inequality but also feelings of anxiety and insecurity, especially on the part of non-Englishspeaking
people in a rapidly globalizing world. Thus, there is a need to propose a paradigm to
counterattack the hegemony of English so that linguistic and cultural pluralism will be secured.
Here I want to achieve two goals. One is to raise the problem of the hegemony of English by
discussing the two aspects: neocolonialism and globalism. The other goal is to discuss what I call
the “Ecology of Language Paradigm” as a counterstrategy to the hegemony of English and its
implications for international communication and linguistic pluralism. Addressing the problem
of linguistic hegemony is crucial to developing human and cultural security.
Dominance of English as Neocolonialism
It is often said that English is the most widely used language for international and intercultural
communication. A number of linguists have tracked the global spread of English and have
shown that it is the most prevalent language today. Ammon, for example, points out several
statistical indicators of the dominance of English. The number of English speakers has grown to
1.5 billion people. English is designated as an official language in as many as 62 nations. English
is the most dominant language in scientific communication, being the language of 70–80 percent
of academic publications. English is the de facto official and working language in most international
organizations. English is the most-taught foreign language around the world (Ammon,
1992, pp. 78–81).
English is indeed the most dominant language and operates as a common medium for
international communication. Because it is dominant, however, English is also the “hegemonic”
and “neocolonialist” language. It creates both a structure of linguistic and communicative
inequality and discrimination between speakers of English and speakers of other languages and
a form of indirect rule over many aspects of life.
The use of English has been taken for granted in most international interactions, and it has
almost never been called into question. In the English-dominated Western academic community,
the use of English has never been perceived as the problematic, as far as I know. Strangely
enough, international and intercultural communication studies are quite indifferent to the
dominance of English, while sociolinguistics centers on the objective description of the spread of
English and thus legitimates the function of English as an international language.
I have been attempting to critically examine the dominance of English as the problematic in
international communication (Tsuda, 1986, 1990, 1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1994, 1996). I have found
that the dominance of English causes serious consequences, which include: (1) linguistic and
communicative inequality to the great disadvantage of the speakers of languages other than
English; (2) discrimination against non-English-speaking people and those who are not proficient
in English; and (3) colonization of the consciousness of non-English-speakers, causing
them to develop linguistic, cultural, and psychological dependency upon, and identification
with, English, its culture and people.
Linguistic and communicative inequality
In a situation where English dominates communication, the non-English-speaking people are
inevitably disadvantaged. They become mute and deaf and are therefore prevented from fully
participating in communication. Let us look at an example from international conferences.
Takahashi, a Japanese anthropologist, having observed the proceedings of an international
conference where English was the only official language, argues that English-dominated international
conferences are bound to serve as an arena for linguistic and communicative discrimination
(Takahashi, 1991). In his view, native speakers of English take full advantage of
the linguistic and communicative inequality to their own benefit. Takahashi reports on his
observation as follows:
There is a great gap in the working knowledge of English between native speakers and
non-native speakers, especially those speakers whose mother tongues are linguistically
distant from English. Thus, native speakers of English intentionally try to push non-native
speakers out of discussions by making a full use of tactics that stem from phonetic,
idiomatic, syntactic, and pragmatic characteristics unique only in English . . . . For
example, they step up the speed of speech, use a large number of jargons and idioms, or
make utterances that are grammatically complex . . . . These communicative tactics are
used to take advantage of lower proficiency of non-native speakers in English.
(Takahashi, 1991, pp. 188–189)
As Takahashi observed, it seems that native speakers of English in the English-dominated conferences,
use their linguistic advantage to magnify their power so that they can establish an
unequal and asymmetrical relationship with the non-English-speakers and thus push them out
of the mainstream of communication.
There are a great many other examples of linguistic and communicative inequality arising
from the dominance of English, but it is sufficient to report one more.
W. J. Coughlin, an American journalist, wrote about the mokusatsu mistake that lead to the
atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Coughlin, 1953). He reported that the Japanese
prime minister’s response of Mokusatsu to the Allies’ demand for complete surrender was
misinterpreted to mean “reject” the demand, driving American President Harry Truman to
decide on the atomic bombing. Mokusatsu actually means both “ignore” and “no comment.”
The point in this historic misunderstanding of a word is that in the English-dominated
Japan–U.S. communication, the Americans always have semantic control and the subtle nuances
of Japanese semantics are “ignored” or “overlooked.” In other words, in English-dominated
communication, English speakers are in a position to control communication to their own
advantage.
Linguistic discrimination and social inequality
The dominance of English also creates prejudices and stereotypes that, in turn, create discrimination
against those who do not or cannot speak English. For example, those who cannot speak
English fluently are labeled incompetent and thus insulted and perceived to be inferior.
Let me present two examples of discrimination as a result of the dominance of English. The
first example comes from a Time magazine article that reports on a Chinese immigrant to the
United States. He was confined in a mental institution for 31 years because of “the incomprehensible
English” he spoke. The article reports that when the Chinese visited a doctor, he was
diagnosed as “abnormal” because of the English he spoke (Time, January 9, 1984).
The second example illustrates discrimination among non-native speakers of English. Kazuo
Kojima, a Japanese journalist, wrote an essay about the role of English as a basis of discrimination
in Southeast Asia (Kojima, 1996). Being able to speak English is such a source of pride for
the people in these countries that some proficient speakers of English are inclined to insult and
discriminate against those who cannot speak English. Kojima himself heard an Indian say, “Iraqis
are beasts, because they can’t speak English.”
I believe this is a rather extreme case, and most Indians do not hold such a discriminatory
attitude. These two examples suggest, however, that the dominance of English is such that the
stereotypes and prejudice are easily created and lead to discriminatory perceptions and attitudes
toward those who do not and cannot speak English. In other words, English, because of its
dominant prestigious status, functions as a basis of discrimination and therefore legitimates and
reproduces the perceptions of linguistic prejudice and discrimination.
Discriminatory perceptions and attitudes toward non-English-speakers justify the social
hierarchy, which places native speakers of English at the top of the order with non-native
speakers of English placed in the middle and the people who do not speak English placed at the
bottom. The dominance of English is such that proficiency in the language serves as a criterion
by which to classify people.
Thus, native speakers of English reign as a prestigious ruling class of international communication:
they can easily express their ideas any time, while non-native speakers and people who do
not speaker English constitute the “muted” working class of international communication: they
are compelled to learn English and have difficulty expressing their ideas. This is what I call the
“Class Structure of International Communication” on the basis of proficiency of English.
Colonization of the consciousness
The third and ultimate consequence of the dominance of English is what is usually called
“colonization of the consciousness,” which refers to the mental control of the colonized by the
colonizer. Colonization of the mind occurs as a result of the domination of the colonizer’s
language over the language of the colonized. Ngugi wa Thiong’o, an African writer famous for
his book, Decolonizing the Mind, describes how colonialism takes control of the mind of the
colonized.
[Colonialism’s] most important area of domination was the mental universe of the
colonized, the control, through culture, of how people perceived themselves and their
relationship to the world. . . .
For colonialism this involved two aspects of the same process: the destruction or the deliberate
undervaluing of a people’s culture, their art, dances, religions, history, geography, education,
orature and literature, and the conscious elevation of the language of the colonizer. The domination
of a people’s language by the languages of the colonizing nations was crucial to the
domination of the mental universe of the colonized (Ngugi, 1981, p. 160).
As Ngugi clearly points out, linguistic domination leads to mental control. This implies that
the global dominance of English today is leading to the control of the mind of the global
population by speakers of English and their nations and governments.
Ngugi also points out that mental control is made possible by a combination of “the destruction
or the deliberate undervaluing of a people’s culture” and “the conscious elevation of the
language of the colonizer.”
In the face of this mental controlling, the colonized/dominated are usually coerced into
complying with the force of mental controlling, which facilitates the execution of the colonization
of the mind. In short, the dominated are led to identify with the dominator and glorify
the dominator’s language while devaluing their own language and culture. This psychological
identification with the dominators and their language is the ultimate result of the colonization
of the mind. The process of colonization of the mind, which involves identification, glorification,
and devaluing, is clearly reflected in an African sociolinguist’s comment on linguistic
imperialism:
The phenomenon in which the minds and lives of the speakers of a language are dominated
by another language to the point where they believe that they can and should use only that
foreign language when it comes to transactions dealing with the more advanced aspects of
life such as education, philosophy, literature, government, the administration of justice,
etc. . . . Linguistic imperialism has a subtle way of warping the minds, attitudes, and
aspirations of even the most noble in a society and of preventing him from appreciating
and realizing the full potentialities of the indigenous languages.
(Quoted in Phillipson, 1992, p. 56)
The sociolinguist is aware of the mental control that dominated suffers, but most of the
dominated unknowingly comply with the force of mental colonization.
Learners of English, as they try to master the language, unknowingly fall prey to the colonization
of the mind. The following passage by a Japanese student well exemplifies the mental control
of learners of English by English:
The primary goal of this journey was to learn the American way of life, not to mention
learning how to speak English a lot better. To learn how English really works, it would be
best to take out all the Japanese words from my brain and fill it up with English instead.
I must use English all the time, even when I speak to myself, write my diary, and speak to
a dog!
(Quoted in Tsuda, 1990, p. 145)
What we witness here is not mere linguistic and cultural learning but the transformation of
a person’s mind, from a Japanese mind to an English-centered one—the colonization of a
person’s mind and the conscious devaluating her own language.
Dominance of English as Globalism
While the dominance of English as neocolonialism occurs at the level of international interpersonal
communication, the dominance of English as globalism operates at the level of international
mass communication, which involves issues such as cultural and media imperialism,
Americanization of global culture, McDonaldization and Dallasization of society, unequal flow
of international news and information, dominance of English on the Internet, and so on.
In short, the dominance of English operates as a means of promoting globalization. The
dominance of English no doubt facilitates globalization. Globalization, in turn, assumes and
encourages the use and dominance of English. In other words, the dominance of English is a
reflection of the structure of global relations.
Australian applied linguist A. Pennycook, for example, points out the interrelationship
between the dominance of English and the structure of global relations:
[I]ts widespread use threatens other languages; it has become the language of power and
prestige in many countries, thus acting as a crucial gatekeeper to social and economic
progress; its use in particular domains, especially professional, may exacerbate different
power relationships and may render these domains more inaccessible to many people; its
position in the world gives it a role also as an international gatekeeper, regulating the
international flow of people; it is closely linked to national and increasingly non-national
forms of culture and knowledge that are dominant in the world; and it is also bound up
with aspects of global relations, such as spread of capitalism, development aid and the
dominance particularly of North American Media.
(Pennycook, 1994, p. 13)
Thus addressing the dominance of English is crucial to understanding the structure of global
relations.
According to sociolinguist Roland Robertson, one of the most prominent scholars on globalization,
globalization as a concept refers to “the crystallization of the entire world as a single
place” (quoted in Arnason, 1990, p. 220) or “the compression of the world and the intensification
of consciousness of the world as a whole” (Robertson, 1992, p. 8).
Globalization in a more concrete sense is taking place primarily in economic domains in
which transnational corporations act as agents to conduct business and trade beyond national
borders. As a result, we live in a global culture in which our lives are filled with products and
information imported from overseas.
Globalism, therefore, is a belief or a form of knowledge that globalization should happen.
Globalism accepts globalization as natural, inevitable, and beneficial for all (Pennycook, 1994).
As I mentioned, however, globalization, in fact, causes the Americanization of world culture
and McDonaldization of society: it is not a process carefully planned but a mere affirmation of
the structure of the unequal global relations in which a few center nations dominate over the
periphery nations.
Thus globalism justifies globalization as it is occurring today. Globalism prevents us from
recognizing the three consequences of globalization: Anglo-Americanization, transnationalization,
and commercialization of contemporary life.
Globalization as Anglo-Americanization
The most serious problem caused by globalization is the Anglo-Americanization of the world
culture, based on the Anglo-American monopoly of the global information and entertainment
market.
Take movies, for example. Of 87 countries surveyed in 1992, as many as 63 countries
imported the largest number of movies shown from the United States, and 20 out of 25 European
countries showed 60–70 percent American movies. Also in Japan, more than half of the movies
shown are imported from the United States (Tsuda, 1996).
It seems that the dominance of American products is evident in the entire international mass
communication market: American videos, music, news, magazines, TV programs, and so on, are
exported throughout the world. This inevitably results in “ideological control” of the world
population, especially by the United States. American ways of feeling and thinking have become
very visible and therefore influential as American cultural and information products have been
received and welcomed by the whole population of the world.
Thus, Anglo-Americanization and globalization go hand in hand, putting the United States
in a position to be able to control, influence, and dominate other countries in terms of values,
beliefs, and thought. The dominance of American media products provides the United States
with a power to promote and facilitate globalization as well as to spread their values across the
world. It also facilitates the global spread of English. The rest of the world is simply bombarded
with images, ideas, and values that are not their own. Americanization and globalization thus
cause ideological invasions of countries throughout the world and interfere with cultural and
political self-determination of most of the countries.
Globalization as Transnationalization
The most striking characteristic of globalization is its transnationalizing force. Due to rapid
developments in telecommunication technologies and networks such as communication satellites,
personal computers, and the Internet, most messages and information are disseminated on
a global scale, easily going beyond national borders. These transnational messages are so powerful
that the image from the West is believed to have influenced the people of East Germany and
caused the collapse of the Berlin Wall. This leads us to believe that whoever controls the
channels and media of transnational telecommunication can control global relations. Rather, I
would say the present system of transnational telecommunication, which is heavily dominated
by the advanced Western capitalist countries, is merely a reflection of the unequal power
structure between the center countries and the periphery countries.
Although there was an urgent demand for a more nearly equal flow of international information,
as demonstrated in the UNESCO attempt to establish a “New World Information and
Communication Order” started in the 1970s, such a call from the non-Western nations has been
mostly ignored by the United States and the United Kingdom as they withdrew from UNESCO
in the middle of the 1980s.
The introduction of the “Information Superhighway” by the United States and the global
spread of the Internet in the 1990s resulted in loss of interest in the issues of imbalance and
inequality in the flow of international information. Above all, the dominance of English on the
Internet and in international information is not merely creating inequality in communication
and homogenization of culture but is also affirming and reinforcing the structure of inequality
between English and other languages.
Thus the transnationalizing aspect of globalization does not contribute to the establishment
of a more nearly equal international communication. Rather, globalization consolidates the
power structure of global relations in which the advanced capitalist countries such as the United
States dominate all the rest.
Globalization as Commercialization
Today for the English-speaking countries English is the best commodity that can be exported
throughout the world. English is the best-selling product every year. This means that the Englishspeaking
countries have more linguistic capital than countries of other languages. Because
English is the most widely used and taught language, it is accepted easily in almost any place in
the world. Because of this great communicability and acceptability, English-language related
products ranging from movies, videos, and compact discs to jeans, T-shirts, discos, and so on
are exported and consumed all over the world. One of the problems with this globalization of
English products is that it creates “cultural domination” by the United States as well as by
transnational corporations over the non-Western countries and the Third World. Herbert
Schiller, an American critical scholar, characterizes the global spread of cultural domination as
“transnational corporate cultural domination” (Schiller, 1991) which causes the commercialization
of our life:
Excluding the public’s voice, denying the right to political expression, extolling shopping
as the primary activity of human existence, owned privately, the mall is the foremost
expression of contemporary capitalism, providing the daily social experience of millions
of people. If the transnational corporate order has a vision, possibly an absurd notion,
surely it must be that of a global shopping mall.
(Shiller, 1989, p. 43)
Schiller thus points out that American and transnational corporations’ cultural domination
spreads in all the spheres of our daily lives, commercializing all our physical and mental spaces.
American cultural products such as Disneyland, rock and roll, McDonald’s, and so forth
appeal to and satisfy the libido of the people, thus transforming them into mere consumers of
these products who willingly continue to purchase them without really knowing that they are
trapped in a cycle of consumption. Once trapped in the cycle, people accept it as inevitable and
thus become happily enslaved to consuming English products.
Globalization of English products thus not only gives rise to “cultural domination” of the
United States and transnational corporations but also causes commercialization of all spheres of
life. We become consumers willing to purchase English products, unknowingly helping to
reproduce the structure of cultural domination and commercialization of life.
The Ecology of Language as Counterstrategy to the Hegemony of English
We have seen in the above discussions that the hegemony of English creates and reproduces
inequality, discrimination, and colonization of the mind as well as Americanization, transnationalization,
and commercialization of contemporary life. In order to solve these problems and
realize equal and emancipatory communication, the Ecology of Language Paradigm is very
much needed as a theory of resisting the hegemony of English. The Ecology of Language
Paradigm serves as a theory or perspective for promoting a more nearly equal language and
communication policy of world.
I first talked about the Ecology of Language Paradigm in 1993 in Honolulu at the East-West
Center’s Internationalization Forum. The two paradigms are as follows:
The Diffusion of English Paradigm, which is a dominant position not only in the AngloAmerican world but also in the former British colonies in Asia and Africa, is characterized
by theoretical orientations such as capitalism, science and technology, modernization,
monolingualism, ideological globalization and internationalization, transnationalization,
Americanization, homogenization of world culture, and linguistic, cultural, and media
imperialism.
In contrast, an alternative theoretical orientation critical of the Diffusion of English
Paradigm is what I call the Ecology of Language Paradigm. This paradigm is based on the
theoretical positions such as the human rights perspective, equality in communication,
multilingualism, maintenance of languages and cultures, protection of national sovereignties,
and promotion of foreign language education.
(Tsuda, 1994, pp. 58–59)
Thus the Diffusion of English Paradigm, or what I call the Hegemony of English Paradigm,
evidently serves Western capitalism and civilization, while the Ecology of Language Paradigm
is critical to the underlying philosophy of Western civilization, which advances modernization.
For example, the philosophy of language in the Hegemony of English Paradigm is basically
functionalism in that it sees language as a mere tool or instrument for communication and fails
to understand that it is an essential component of culture and identity. Thus the Hegemony of
English Paradigm disconnects language from culture and the people using it.
On the other hand, the Ecology of Language Paradigm assumes that language is culture and is
a source of personal identity. Moreover, in the Ecology of Language Paradigm language is a
precious environment that creates us and our culture. Language is not a mere instrument but is
an environment that influences and shapes us.
Also, the Ecology of Language Paradigm holds that language is people and people are
language. Therefore, inequality among languages means inequality among people. The death pf
one language is the death of its speakers.
Based on these views of language, the Ecology of Language Paradigm advocates: (1) the right
to language; (2) equality in communication; and (3) multilingualism and multiculturalism. By
advocating these goals, the Ecology of Language Paradigm attempts to promote linguistic and
cultural security for the non-English-speaking people. Let us look at each of them.
The right to language
The Ecology of Language Paradigm regards “the right to language” as an essential right for every
person. The “right to language” primarily refers to an individual’s right and freedom to use a
language of his or her choice in any circumstances. It therefore assumes an individual’s right and
freedom not to use a language that is not his or her choice but is imposed.
The central concept of “the right to language” resides in the use and recognition of an individual’s
“mother tongues.” Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and Robert Phillipson, authors of Linguistic
Human Rights, define “linguistic human rights’ and “mother tongues” as follows:
We will provisionally regard linguistic human rights in relation to the mother tongue(s)
as consisting of the right to identify with it/them, and to education and public services
through the medium of it/them. Mother tongues are here defined as “the language(s) one
has learned first and identifies with.” In relation to other languages we will regard linguistic
human rights as consisting of the right to learn an official language in the country
of residence, in its standard form.
(Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 1995, p. 71)
Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson emphasize two factors in their definition. One is “identification
with an individual’s mother tongues.” They believe that emotional attachment to one’s
mother tongues should be recognized as a part of “the right to language.” Second, they
emphasize social participation and integration. They recognize language as a channel that
enables people to participate and integrate into society. They recognize access to an official
language as a part of linguistic human rights.
Therefore, we can provisionally say that “the right to language” involves an individual’s right
to use, learn, and identify with a language of his or her choice including his or her mother
tongues and official languages of the country in which he or she lives.
Equality in communication
The prerequisite for equality in international communication is equality among languages. If a
speaker of language A and a speaker of language B communicate by speaking either one of the
two languages, inequality in communication occurs.
One of the most influential factors justifying the use of English in international communication
is the taken-for-granted assumption that English should be used. English-speaking people
unconsciously believe English to be used by all people; that is, they unconsciously have a linguistic
imperialist consciousness. Meanwhile, non-English speaking people assume that the use
of English is inevitable, indicating the colonization of the mind on their part.
A consciousness revolution is thus needed to alleviate imperialistic consciousness as well as
colonization of the mind.
One practical approach to establishing equality in international communication is “linguistic
localism,” or the use of local languages by all participants in communication. For example, when
an international conference meets in France, every participant speaks French; if a conference is
held in Japan, Japanese should be used. By practicing linguistic localism we can develop an
intercultural awareness of sharing the burden of using and learning foreign languages.
Effective use of translators and interpreters is also encouraged to promote equal use of
languages.
Use of a third language, or what I call “neutralingual communication,” is another approach.
When an American and a Chinese communicate in a third language, such as French, Russian, or
Malay, they engage in linguistically equal communication in comparison with communication
in English, which favors the American one-sidedly.
Another strategy for promoting equality in communication is equalizing the linguistic handicaps
of the participants in communication. For example, if each one of us speaks a foreign
language or a planned, constructed language such as Esperanto, we will be able to establish
equality in our linguistic handicaps, which will lead to equality in communication.
The primary reason for emphasizing equality in communication is that it will establish
“symmetry” among people, enabling them to exchange ideas without much constraint, as
German social theorist Jürgen Habermas points out when he talks about “the ideal speech
situation”:
pure intersubjectivity exists only when there is complete symmetry in the distribution of
assertion and dispute, revelation and concealment, prescription and conformity, among
the partners of communication.
(Habermas, 1970, p. 371)
Of all the symmetries, linguistic symmetry is the most important for realizing equality in
communication and “the ideal speech situation.”
Multilingualism and multiculturalism
Multilingualism and multiculturalism can also be called “linguistic and cultural pluralism,”
suggesting a critical theoretical position against monolingualism and monoculturalism, which
aim at one language and one culture in a society.
The history of modernization was a process of building monolingual and monocultural
societies, as the standard languages were developed for efficient communication at the expense
of innumerable local languages and dialects. As a result, linguistic hierarchization emerged,
and it caused social stratification and inequality as well as discrimination. Globalization as it
is occurring today is bringing about a new “global class society” in which English and Anglo-
American culture dominate as a “global ruling class.”
Linguistic and cultural pluralism is counterstrategy against the force of monolingualism and
monoculturalism. It opposes monolithic singularism because diversity is the most important
index of a truly democratic society. Pluralism is a philosophy of tolerance and conviviality that
pursues a harmonious coexistence of different cultures, languages, and people. Pluralism also
pays most attention to minorities, the dominated, and the disadvantaged, as it believes that these
people should be given equal opportunities.
Thus, linguistic and cultural pluralism not only criticizes monolingualism and monoculturalism
but also serves an important indicator of whether a certain society is truly democratic or
not. The philosophy of pluralism is very necessary if we really wish to realize the democratization
of international communication.
Implication of the ecology of language paradigm
The ideas and goals advocated by the Ecology of Language Paradigm should be incorporated
into the theories and practices of international communication, especially for the purpose of
democratizing it. Let me summarize some of the implications of the Ecology of Language
Paradigm for the betterment of international communication today.
1. The Ecology of Language provides a critical perspective for the present English-dominated
international communication and raises consciousness about issues such as the right to
language and equality in communication.
2. The Ecology of Language serves non-English-speaking people by providing a theoretical
base for building strategies to fight the hegemony of English and promote their cultural
security and empowerment. In other words, it serves as a strategy for creating a balance of
cultural and linguistic power between English and other languages.
3. The Ecology of Language provides a theoretical foundation for the development of a
global language policy, especially from the position of promoting multilingualism and
multiculturalism.
4. The Ecology of Language serves English-speaking people by providing them with a critical
awareness and knowledge with regard to the dominance of English, raising the consciousness
about equality in communication, the right to language, and linguistic and cultural
pluralism.
The Ecology of Language Paradigm is not without faults and weaknesses. Perhaps linguistic and
cultural isolationism is one likely pitfall. If multilingualism, for example, is pursued to the extreme
at the expense of everything else, the speakers of minority languages might be confined in their
languages and thus unable to communicate with the world outside of their linguistic and cultural
boundaries. In order to prevent linguistic and cultural isolation, we should recognize “ecologyconscious”
ideas such as “communication globalism” and “liberal localism” developed by Majid
Tehranian (1993) and integrate them into the Ecology of Language Paradigm.
Conclusion
Whenever I criticize the hegemony of English, I am asked the same question: “I understand what
you are talking about. But look, English is the lingua franca today. How can we communicate
without it?”
I am not denying the use and learning of English. Rather, what I am challenging is the very
knowledge or consciousness that makes it possible for people to ask such a question: the
knowledge that takes for granted the existing reality, accepts it as natural, inevitable, and even
beneficial; the knowledge that refuses to envision the alternative.
We need to examine the existing reality and then try to fill the gap between the status quo and
the ideal by exploring the problems and providing solutions to them.
In conclusion, I would like to make three suggestions.
The first one is directed to scholars of international and intercultural communication. That
is, I suggest that the hegemony of English should become the subject of academic inquiry in the
area of international and intercultural communication, especially in the English-speaking
countries.
The second suggestion is directed to English-language teaching professionals. I suggest that
the English-language education should incorporate the Ecology of Language Paradigm into the
contents and methods of teaching as well as teacher education.
The last suggestion goes to all speakers of English. I suggest that both native speakers and
non-native speakers of English learn the philosophy of the Ecology of Language so that they will
become more sensitive to the ethical aspects of international communication.