Repost:The Hegemony of English and Strategies for Linguistic Pluralism

Yukio Tsuda

Professor, Graduate School of International Development

Nagoya University, Aichi, 464-01, JAPAN

Introduction

One of the most important tasks that we scholars ought to achieve is to discover a question out of the taken-for-granted knowledge in the existing reality. The question I want to raise in this paper is concerned with the use of English which is very much taken for granted in international communication today. Speaking from the non-English-speaking perspective, I believe the use of English should not be taken for granted, but it should be examined as a problem of linguistic hegemony. It is evident that English is the de facto international language of international communication today, but it is also evident that the dominance of English today causes not only linguistic and communicative inequality but also the feelings of anxiety and insecurity especially on the part of the non-English-speaking people in a rapidly globalizing world in which English dominates extensively. Thus, there is a need to propose a paradigm for counterattacking the Hegemony of English so that linguistic and cultural pluralism will be secured.

In this paper I want to achieve two goals. One is to raise the problem of the Hegemony of English by discussing the two aspects of it, namely, neocolonialism and globalism. The other goal is to discuss what I call "The Ecology of Language Paradigm" as a counter-strategy to the Hegemony of English in order to find some implications for the building of a more equal international communication and linguistic pluralism. Addressing the problem of linguistic hegemony is crucial to the development of human and cultural security.

1. Dominance of English as Neo-colonialism

It is often said that English is the most widely used language for international and intercultural communication. A number of linguists, in fact, report on the global spread of English, indicating the dominant status of English as the most prevalent language of today. Ammon, for example, points out the dominance of English by providing same statistics about the dominance of English. According to him, (1) English has the greatest number of speakers reaching as many as 1.5 billion people; (2) English is designated as official languages of as many as 62 nations; (3) English is the most dominant language in scientific communication with 70-80 percent of academic publications being published in it; (4) English is the de facto official and working language in most international organizations; (5) English is the most taught foreign language across the world (Ammon, 1992:78-81).

English is indeed the most dominant language and operates as a common medium for international communication.

However, because it is the most dominant, English is also the "hegemonic" and "neocolonialist" language, creating not only the structure of linguistic and communicative inequality and discrimination between speakers of English and speakers of other languages, but also indirect rule over many aspects of their lives.

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 Socio linguistics 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 a great disadvantage of the speakers of languages other than English; (2) discrimination against the non-English-speaking people and those who are not proficient in English; and (3) colonization of the consciousness of the non-English-speakers, causing them to develop linguistic, cultural, and psychological dependency upon, and identification with, the English, its culture and people.

1.1. 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 therefore prevented from fully participating in communication.

The structure of linguistic and communicative inequality exists in a highly English-dominated international communication. Let us look at an example from international conferences.

Takahashi, a Japanese anthropologist, having observed the proceedings of an international conference where English is the only one official language, argues that English-dominated international conferences are bound to serve as an arena for linguistic and communicative discrimination (Takahashi, 1991). According to him, native speakers of English take full advantage of the linguistic and communicative inequality to their own benefits. 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 the 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 example.

W.J. Coughlin, an American journalist, reports on the " Mokusatsu" mistake that caused the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Coughlin,1953). He reports that the Japanese prime minister's response of " Mokusatsu" to the demand of complete surrender by the United Allies, was misinterpreted to mean "reject" the demand, driving the then 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, that the Americans always have the control of semantics under which the subtle nuances of the Japanese semantics are "ignored" or "overlooked." In other words, in the English-dominated communication, English speakers are in a position to control communication to their own advantage.

1.2. Linguistic Discrimination and Social Inequality

The dominance of English also creates the prejudices and stereotypes which, in turn, creates discrimination against those who do not or can not speak English. For example, those who can not speak English fluently are labeled as 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 as Time magazine article which reports on a Chinese immigrant to the United States. He was confined in a mental institution for thirty-one 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. ("Free at last," 1984)

The second example illustrates discrimination among the non-native speakers of English. Kazuo Kojima, a Japanese journalist, writes an essay about the role of English in Southeast Asia as a basis of discrimination (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 can not speak English. Kojima himself has a personal experience of having heard an Indian say, "Iraqis are beasts, because they can't speak English."

I believe this is rather an extreme case, and most Indians do not hold such an discriminatory attitude. However, these two examples suggest that the dominance of English is such that the stereotypes and prejudices are easily created to hold a discriminatory perception and attitude 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 English serves as a criterion by which to classify people according to the proficiency in English.

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 speak English constitute the "muted" working class of international communication: they are slaved to learn English and have difficulty in expressing their ideas. This is what I call "The Class Structure of International Communication" on the basis of proficiency in English.

1.3. 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 titled Decolonizing the Mind, describes how colonialism takes control of the mind of the colonized as follows:

[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,1981:160, underline by Tsuda)

As Ngugi clearly points out, linguistic domination leads to mental control. This implies that the global dominance of English today is to lead to the control of the mind of the global population by the speakers of English, and their nations, and governments.

Ngugi also points out that the 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 usually are 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 to an English-centered one; namely, the colonization of a person's mind and the conscious devaluing of her own language.

2. 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 the issues such as cultural and media imperialism, Americanization of global culture, McDonaldization and Dallasization of the society, the unequal flow of international news and information, the dominance of English in the Internet, and so on. In short, the dominance of English operates as a means of promoting globalization. The dominance of English doubtlessly serves to facilitate 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 as follows:

[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 sociologist 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, 1990:220) or "the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole" (Robertson, 1992:8).

"Globalization" in a more concrete sense is taking place primarily in economic domains in which transnational corporations (TNCs) act as the agent to conduct business and trade beyond the national borders. As a result, we live in a "global culture" in which our life is filled with products and information imported from overseas.

"Globalism," therefore, is the belief or a form of knowledge that "globalization" should happen. Globalism accepts "globalization" as natural.

However, as I mentioned, globalization, in fact, causes the Americanization of the world culture and McDonaldization of the society: it is not a process carefully planned, but it is 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 happening today. "Globalism" prevents us from recognizing the three consequences of globalization including: (1)Anglo-Americanization, (2)Transnationalization and (3)Commercialization of our contemporary life.

2.1.Globalization as Anglo-Americanization

The most serious problem caused by globalization is Anglo-Americanization of the world culture, based on the Anglo-American monopoly of the global market of information and entertainment.

Take movies, for example. Of 87 countries surveyed in 1992, as many as 63 countries import the largest number of movies from the United States, and 20 out of 25 European countries have a share of 60-70 percent of American movies. Also in Japan, more than half of its movies are imported from the United States (Tsuda, 1996).

It seems that the dominance of American products is evident in the entire global market of international mass communication: American videos, music, news, magazines, TV programs, and so on, are exported throughout the world.

This inevitably results in the "ideological control" of the world population, especially by the United States. American ways of feeling and thinking become very visible and therefore influential as American cultural and information products are received and welcomed by the whole population of the world.

Thus, Anglo-Americanization and globalization go hand in hand, enabling the United States to be in a position to be able to control, influence, and dominate over other countries in terms of values, beliefs, and thoughts. 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 the images, ideas, and values that are not their own. Americanization and globalization thus cause ideological invasion into countries throughout the world and interfere with cultural and political self-determination of most of the countries.

2.2. Globalization as Transnationalization

The most striking characteristic of globalization is its transnationalizing force. Due to rapid developments of telecommunication technologies and networks such as communication satellites, personal computers, and Internet, most messages and information are disseminated on a global scale, easily going beyond the national borders. The power of transnational messages is so powerful that the image from the West is believed to have influenced the people of East Germany and caused the collapse of the wall of Berlin. This leads us to believe that whoever controls the channels and media of transnational telecommunication can control global relations. Rather, I would say that the present system of transnational telecommunication which is heavily dominated by the Western advanced capitalist countries such as the United States is merely a reflection of the unequal power structure between the Center countries and the Periphery countries.

Although there was an urgent demand for more equal flow of international information as demonstrated in the UNESCO attempt to establish "The New World Information and Communication Order" started in the 1970's, 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 1980's.

The introduction of the "Information Superhighway" by the United States and global spread of the Internet in the 1990's result in the loss of interest in the issue of imbalance and inequality in the flow of international information. Above all, the dominance of English on the Internet and international information is not merely creating inequality in communication and homogenization of culture, but it 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 equal international communication. Rather, globalization operates to consolidate the power structure of global relations in which the advanced capitalist countries such as the United States dominate over all the rest.

2.3. 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. It means that the English-speaking countries have a larger 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 greatest communicability and acceptability, the English-language related products ranging from movies, videos, CDs to jeans, T-shirts, discos, and so on, are exported and consumed all over the world. One of problems with this globalization of English products is that it creates "cultural domination" by the United States as well as the 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 A|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 A| possibly an absurd notion A| surely it must be that of a global shopping mall.(Schiller, 1989:43)

Schiller thus points out that American and transnational corporation's cultural domination spreads in all the spheres of our daily life, commercializing all the physical and mental spaces of our life.

This brings about another problem with the globalization of English products, namely, commercialization of our life and existence.

American cultural products such as Disneyland, rock & roll, McDonalds, etc., appeal to, and satisfy, the libido of the people, thus transforming our existence 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 a cycle of consumption, people accept it as the inevitable, and thus become happily slaved to consume English products.

Globalization of English products thus gives rise to not only "cultural domination" of the United States and transnational corporations, but it also causes "commercialization" of all the spheres of our life in which we become consumers willing to purchase English products, unknowingly helping to reproduce the structure of cultural domination and commercialization of life.

3. The Ecology of Language as a Counter-Strategy to the Hegemony of English

We have seen in the above discussions that the Hegemony of English creates and reproduces inequality, discrimination, colonization of the mind as well as Americanization, transnationalization, and commercialization of our 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 equal language and communication policy of the world.

I have 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 Anglo-American 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, and homogenization of the world culture, and linguistic, cultural, and media imperialism.

In contrast, an alternative theorical orientation critical of the Diffusion of English Paradigm is what I call the "Ecology of Language Paradigm." This paradigm is based on the theorical positions such as Human Rights Perspective, equality in communication, multilingualism, maintenance of languages and cultures, protection of national sovereignties, promotion of foreign language education (Tsuda,1994:58-59).

Thus, the Diffusion of English or what I call "The Hegemony of English Paradigm," is evidently a paradigm serving Western capitalism and civilization, while the "Ecology of Language Paradigm" is a paradigm critical of 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, the Ecology of Language believes that language is a precious environment which creates us and our culture. Language is not a mere instrument, but it is an environment that influences and shapes us.

Also, the "Ecology of Language Paradigm" believes that language is people, and people are language. Therefore, inequality among languages means inequality among people. The death of one language is the death of its speakers.

Based on these views of language, the "Ecology of Language Paradigm" advocate the following:

(1) The Right to Language

(2) Equality in Communication

(3) Multilingualism and Multiculturalism

By advocating these goals, the "Ecology of Language Paradigm" attempt to promote linguistic and cultural security for the non-English-speaking people. Let us look at each of them.

3.1. 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/her choice in any circumstances. It therefore assumes an individual's right and freedom not to use a language that is not his/her choice but imposed upon him/her.

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, 1995:71).

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."

Another factor emphasized by Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson is social participation and integration. They recognize language as a channel that enables people to participate and integrate into the 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/her choice including his/her mother tongues and official languages of the country where they live.

3.2. Equality in Communication

The prerequisite for equality in international communication is equality among languages. If a speaker of languageC` and a speaker of languageCa communicates by speaking either one of the two languages, inequality in communication occurs.

One of the most influential factors that justify the use of English in international communication is the taken-for-granted assumption that English should be used. The English-speaking people unconsciously believe English to be used by all people; namely, they unconsciously hold linguistic imperialist consciousness, while the non-English-speaking people assume the use of English as the inevitable, indicating the colonization of the mind on their part.

Consciousness revolution is thus needed to alleviate imperialist 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 the participants in communication. For example, when an international conference meets in France, every participant will speak French, while if a conference is held in Japan, Japanese should be used. By practicing "linguistic localism," we will be able to 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.

In addition, the 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 will 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 by equalizing linguistic handicap 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 linguistic handicap, which will lend 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 J.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, 1970:371)

Of all the symmetries, linguistic symmetry is the most important for realizing equality in communication and the "Ideal Speech Situation."

3.3. Multilingualism and Multiculturalism

Multilingualism and multiculturalism can be also called "Linguistic and Cultural Pluralism," suggesting a critical theoretical position against monolingualism and monoculturalism which aims at one language and one cult.

When we look back upon the history of modernization, we find that it was the 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 happening 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 a 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 which pursues a harmonious coexistence of different cultures, languages, and peoples. Pluralism also pays most attention to the minorities, the dominated, and the disadvantaged, as it believes that these people should be given equal opportunities.

Thus, linguistic and cultural pluralism is not only criticizing monolingualism and monoculturalism, but it serves as an important indicator determining 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 which is dominated by one language, namely, English.

Implications From the Ecology of Language Paradigm

The ideas and goals advocated by the Ecology of Language should be incorporated into the theories and practices of international communication, especially for the purpose of democratizing it. Let me summarize in the following some of the implications from the Ecology of Language 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 the issues such as the right to language and equality in communication.

(2) The Ecology of Language serves the 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 global language policy, especially from the position of promoting multilingualism and multiculturalism.

(4) The Ecology of Language serves the English-speaking people by providing them with a critical awareness and knowledge with regard to the dominance of English, raising consciousness about equality in communication, the right to language, and linguistic and cultural pluralism.

The Ecology of Language Paradigm is not without faults and weakness. Perhaps, linguistic and cultural isolationism is one of the pitfalls that are likely to happen. 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 cannot communicate with the world outside of their linguistic and cultural boundary. In order to prevent linguistic and cultural isolationism, we should recognize the "ecology-conscious" ideas such as "communitarian globalism" and "liberal localism" developed by M.Tehranian (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 actually 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 the 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 the speakers of English. I suggest that both native speakers and non-native speakers of English should learn the philosophy of the Ecology of Language so that they will become more sensitive to the ethical aspects of international communication.

REFERENCES

Ammon,U.(1992). Gengo-to Sono Chii. Trans.by Y.Hieda and H.Yamashita.Tokyo:Sangensha.

Arnason,J.P.(1990). "Nationalism, globalization and Modernity" In M.Featherstone(Ed.), Global Culture. London:Sage.pp.207-236.

Coughlin,W.J.(1953). "The great Mokusatsu mistake: Was this the deadliest error of our time?" Harper's Magazine, 206(1234) 31-40.

"Free at last." (1984). Time, Jan.9, p.24.

Habermas,J.(1970). Towards a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry, 13,360-375

Kojima,K.(1996). "Eigoken-no Kuni-ga Harau Daishou." Mainichi Simbun. Jan.9.

Ngugi wa Thiongo(1981). Decolinizing the Mind: The politics of language in African Literature. London: James Carey.

Pennycook,A.(1994). Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. London: Longman.

Phillipson,R.(1992). Linguistic Imperialism. London: Oxford University Press.

Robertson,R.(1992). Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage.

Schiller,H.(1989). Disney, Dallas and Electronic Data Flows: The Transnationalization of culture. In C.W.Thomsen (Ed.) (1989). Cultural Transfer or Electronic Imperialism?, 33-43 Carl Winter Universitatverlag.

Shiller,H.(1991). "Not yet the Post-imperialist era?" Critical studies in Mass Communication. 8,13-28.

Skutnabb-Kangas,T.& R.Phillipson.(Eds.)(1995). Linguistic Human Rights:Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.

Takahashi,J.(1991). Kokusai Kaigi-ni Miru Nihonjin-no Ibunka Koushou. In J.Takahashi,et.al.(Eds.), Ibunka-eno Sutoratejii.(pp.181-201). Tokyo:Kawashima Shoten

Tehranian,M.(1993). "Ethnic discourse and the new world disorder: A communitarian perspective." In C.Roach (Ed.) Communication and Culture in War and Peace. Newburypark:Sage Publications. 192-215.

Tsuda,T.(1986). Language Inequality and Distortion. . The Netherlands:John Benjamines.

Tsuda,Y.(1990). Eigo Shihai-no Kouzou (The Structure of the Dominance of English) Tokyo:Daisan Shokan.

Tsuda,Y.(1992). Dominance of English and linguistic discrimination Media Development. (39) 1,32-34.

Tsuda,Y.(Ed.)(1993a). Eigo Shihai-eno Iron (Objections to the Dominance of English) Tokyo:Daisan Shokan.

Tsuda,Y.(1993b). Communication in English: Is it anti-cultural? The Journal of Development Communication. (4)1,68-78.

Tsuda,Y.(1994). The diffusion of English: Its impact on culture and communication. Keio Communication Review. (16),48-61.

Tsuda,Y.(1996). Shinryaku-suru Eigo, Hangeki-suru Nihongo. (The Invading English, the Counterattacking Japanese). Tokyo:PHP.

From: miresperanto.com/en/english_as_intern/hegemony_of_english.htm