1. A Critical Review of Marko Modiano's article:
Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL
2001, ELT Journal, volume 55/4, 339-346
Magdalena Bobek
Introduction and Overview
The vast spread of English in the world has led many linguists and language practitioners,
among them Marko Modiano, a native speaker of American English (AmE), and current
Senior Lecturer in English at Gavie University in Sweden (2001a:346), to question English
language teaching and learning and the cultural impositions it may have on the non-native
speaker. In his article 'Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL', Modiano argues
that the spread of English as a form of linguistic imperialism continues to have an impact in
the world today and effects the cultural integrity of the learner (ibid:339). As an advocate of
English as an international language (EIL) he stresses the important role and active
involvement of English language teaching (ELT) practitioners in stopping the spread of
English from imposing on the cultural integrity of the learner by using 'ELT practices which
position and define English as an international language' (ibid). Practitioners are urged to be
aware of the 'so-called 'prestige' varieties' as they lead to Anglo-American hegemony, which
can have a negative influence on the learner's cultural integrity (ibid). Modiano addresses his
concern in six main sections and includes the views, proposals and critiques of other linguists
and practitioners to help make his stand against the cultural imposition of ELT. Throughout
the article he supplies the reader with convincing evidence of the unfavourable effects that
foreign language learning can have on the non-native speaker; examines the role of the EFL
teacher and how they might continue to foster linguistic imperialism in the classroom;
discusses the different ways in which the English language and culture are being promoted
globally thus undermining cultural diversity of nations, and looks at the future perspective of
EIL with a particular focus on the role of EFL practitioners and language planners.

2. A Critical Review – An exchange of ideas
Modiano begins his argument by presenting the opposing critiques of A. Suresh Canagarajah,
and Kanavillil Rajagopalan (see Canagarajah 1999; Rajagopalan 1999) regarding the position
of ELT, which need to be addressed, as they offer insight into the understanding of his main
idea. Rajagopalan (1999:200) is appalled at the rhetoric claiming the spread of EFL as having
an 'aggressive and imperialistic dimension to it' especially in today's world of 'cultural
intermixing and growing multilingualism'. He is firmly convinced that if there is any violence
detected between English and other languages, it is because 'human relations are fraught with
power inequalities' (ibid:202-203) and 'power is exercised in and through language'
(ibid:206). He contends that if minority languages are being endangered, it should be brought
to the attention of the authorities (ibid:201) or in Canagarajah's interpretation, to 'those
entrusted with the affairs of state, presumably bureaucrats and politicians' (1999:210). In
Rajagopalan's opinion there is very little that EFL teachers can do to change linguistic power
and should, therefore, not feel guilty of trying to propagate linguistic imperialism in their
teaching (1999:205). According to Canagarajah, however, this can have negative implications
for ELT practitioners, as they are urged to look the other way and concern themselves only
with the task of teaching language (1999:210). As an advocate of critical pedagogy,
Canagarajah emphasizes the active role of the EFL teacher, who does not have to be 'at the
mercy of power dictated unilaterally from above'(ibid:211). He sees teachers not merely as
'skilled technicians', but 'informed intellectuals', and the classroom as a place where teachers
and students alike have an active role in debating, negotiating and questioning the power
relations in everyday life (ibid:210-211). This would seem to be the ideal approach to ELT,
where there is 'a moral dynamic serving the proper interests of the class', but which requires a
professional approach on the part of the teacher, one of 'integrity and flexibility', to be able to
be true to the students' values, while 'recognizing the worth of alternatives on offer' (Sowden
2008:290). Nevertheless Modiano is convinced that there may be 'aspects of the ELT
practitioner's behaviour which can be perceived as furthering the forces of linguistic
imperialism' (2001a:339).
The Question of Preference
By promoting only one variety of English (AmE or BrE) and excluding others, Modiano sees
the ELT practioner presenting English as 'the property of a specified faction of the native-

3. speaker contingency', which forces students to conform 'to a nation-state centered view' of
English rather than 'an international frame of reference'(ibid:340). As teachers we may
witness this in practice where it is quite often the syllabus design itself that is based on one
dominant variety and which dictates what will be taught in the EFL classroom. In Slovenia,
for example, the syllabus for the public primary and secondary school sectors is prepared by
the Board of Education in collaboration with the Ministry of Education and the Faculty of
Arts, and is primarily based on BrE. Teachers are obliged to teach this variety to prepare
students for school-leaving and matura exams as well as academic purposes in higher
education. Native speaker and non-native speaker teachers, proponents of BrE, have no
objection to this and completely evade other varieties either because of their limited kowledge
of them or their reluctance to teach and/or explain anything apart from that which is in the
prescribed syllabus, as they deem it unnecessary. But because 'language is only authentic in
the original conditions of its use' as Widdowson explains, students in different contexts cannot
always 'engage' with it, 'they cannot make it their own' (1994:386). 'It may be real language',
but '[i]t does not relate to their world'(ibid). This approach can bring about results such as the
one cited by Phillipson (1992:121) of the boy in colonial Africa who after four years of school
knew that the 'Stockton and Darlington Railway was opened in 1825', but had no idea of what
a railway was like. The question that comes to mind is should we as ELT practitioners merely
accept the prescribed norms without question? Does that make us good teachers? I am
convinced that it does not.
Supplying learners with equivalents of lexical items and/or grammatical structures from other
varieties and making them aware of cultural differences whenever possible, can only benefit
them, as it may prove crucial to the understanding of written texts or dialogues that stem from
other non-standard varieties. In one of his arguments on the importance of teaching grammar,
Stubbs mentions how important it is to be 'able to interpret language in use and the points of
view from which language is produced' (1990:3). Students who are exposed to only one
variety may find this very difficult to do, as they may not have the cultural background or
stylistic knowledge to decifer the main idea from a given text. Trudgill, as summarized by
Gray et al (2008:38-39), describes how '[l]exical choice, choice of grammatical structure,
degree of formality', as well as 'topic' vary enormously in style shifting, which may also prove
awkward and uncomfortable for EFL learners, as styles differ from variety to variety (Trudgill
1999:no pagination). The presupposition that one variety is superior to another can be

4. detrimental, because, as Modiano (2001a:339-340) points out, it 'marginalize[s] speakers of
other varieties' and 'undermines cultural diversity'.
Challenging the Supremacy of English
Many ELT practitioners, promoters of AmE or BrE, do not accept the fact that '[t]he cultural
framework of English is global and as such is no longer situated in the legacy of one distinct
culture' (Modiano2001b:162). In Modiano's view if practitioners are to 'promote cultural
equality' in their teaching, they must first realize that the language belongs 'to a broad range
of peoples and cultures' (2001a:340). Widdowson puts it best in saying that English 'is an
international language' and as such it 'has to be an independent language' (1994:385).
Modiano makes the point that not taking this into consideration cannot benefit the cultural
identity of those students who do not want to learn the language 'with integration motivation',
but simply because 'it is a useful cross-cultural communicative tool' (2001a:340). In support
of this idea Modiano states in another article that 'EFL speakers should be provided with a
space' where they can 'interact with others without aligning themselves to […] a specific
mother-tongue speech community' (2001b:170). The 'macro approach' to English teaching
that Modiano (2001a:340) suggests would help promote English as a lingua franca and
encourage cultural diversity, which in my opinion is vital, since most cross-cultural
communication takes place with other non-native speakers where intercultural awareness is of
prime importance.
Modiano continues to pinpoint how cultural diversity is being undermined by the English
language as 'a dominant force in world affairs' (ibid). It is evident that the superiority that
Britain and the US are trying to maintain with the help of activities from their 'government
agencies and private enterprises', has made it all the more difficult if not impossible 'to
safeguard the cultural integrity of the non-native speaker' and promote 'those indigenized
varieties […] which are established forms of intranational communication', as proposed by
Kachru in the article (ibid). One needs only to look at orgainzations such as the British
Council, whose primary role is said to have been the promotion of the British language and
culture, but which also included political and commercial interests (Pennycook1994:147-148).
It soon expanded its influence to Third World countries and today has made its way into ELT,
thereby promoting and institutionalizing particular teaching approaches worldwide (ibid:148-
151).

5. Of course, there are cases where the supremacy of English has been challenged by other
languages. In Canada, for example, English 'has given way […] to a comprehensive French-
English bilingual policy […] with special support […] to French in Quebec' (Bourhis 1984 in
Phillipson 1992:18) and more recently to 'Canada's 'heritage' languages of both immigrant and
indigenous minorities' (Cummins & Danesi 1990 in ibid). In the European Community,
however, even with the recognition of 23 official languages, English still remains by far the
main language of communication. The future of European cultural diversity seems to be one
of Modiano's main concerns due to the threat of Anglo-Americanization of which Europeans
are just beginning to be conscious (2001a:341). In yet another article (see Modiano 2000), he
proposes the development of 'Euro-English', as a probable solution, 'which allows Europeans,
when communicating in English, to retain their divergent cultural distinctiveness', as this
variety is considered culturally unbound and used only for 'cross-cultural communication'
(ibid:no pagination). Programmes like Lingua, which Modiano (2001a:344) alludes to at the
end of his article that encourage the learning of other languages besides English, are,
according to Phillipson (1992:34), being implemented in the EU to curtail the supremacy of
English and strengthen the ties between European nations. However, it is, in my view,
impossible to completely supress the need for learning English by promoting 'a multitude of
international tongues' as proposed by left-wing thinkers in Modiano's article (ibid:341). The
spread of English is 'interwoven with its economic and social origins (Holborow 1993:358),
and has become more powerful than any other language in the world as the result of:
international interdependence, ‘revolutions’ in technology, transport, communications
and commerce, and because English is the language of the USA, a major economic,
political, and military force in the contemporary world' (Phillipson 1992:23-24).
Modiano ascertains that English will always be a necessity to learn, and 'difficult to avoid'
even for those who question its spread, including Pennycook and Phillipson, who see it not
only as advantageous for 'a priviledged few', but also as exploitative (Modiano 2001a:341-
342). It acts not only as a 'prerequisite for participation' in global activities (ibid:341), as
Modiano points out, but also as 'the language of power and prestige […] and […] a
gatekeeper to better jobs in many societies' thus posing not only a threat to other languages
(Pennycook 1994:13-14), but 'actually stifling' them (Gray et al 2008:21).

6. In Search for a Standard English
Modiano reflects on Honey's proposal for a mastery of a 'prescriptive educational standard'
English that would help people 'get on in the world' (Modiano 2001a:342). One wonders,
however, with all the New Englishes that have emerged, whether there will ever be a unified
educational standard English possible. Despite their being developed through the education
system, each New English has become ''localized' in its respective surroundings 'by adopting
some language features of its own such as sounds, intonation patterns, sentence structures,
words, and expressions' (Platt et al 1984: 2-3), enabling it to express the speakers' unique
sociolinguistic identity, as is the situation with the Singapore spoken variety (Gray et al
2008:51). There is also the case of speakers of Scottish, Welsh and Irish varieties, who 'mix
standard and non-standard forms depending on the contexts in which they are speaking and
who their interlocuters are' (ibid:43). Could these varieties not give rise to new standards?
The conflicting views of Kachru and Graddol presented in the article make Honey's
promotion for a standard English even less plausible. Kachru's inner, outer and expanding
circles model with the native speaker 'at the centre of the global use of English'(Modiano
2001a:341) is challenged by Graddol (1997:10) who believes that '[t]hose who speak English
alongside other languages will outnumber first-language speakers and […] decide the global
future of the language'. Modiano admits that with globalization, English will continue to
influence non-native speakers independent of education authorities, and with information
technology forever finding new ways of colonizing 'the hearts and minds of millions of non-
native speakers', he is certain that 'the promotion of a culture specific 'Standard English' is
[…] doomed to fail' (2001a:342). What Modiano fails to add, however, is that the 'major
changes in culture and language' that are bound to take place in connection with computers
and communications, will no longer be restricted only to English (Graddol 1997:30). New
software is being 'customized for lesser used languages' allowing for the development of new
technical vocabulary in other languages, and publishing systems have made possible 'short-
run printing in minority writing systems' (ibid). Such developments are giving minority
languages a chance to come alive.

7. The Global Movement
What may be considered more of a crucial impact on minority cultures are the cultural
artefacts Modiano mentions, 'everything from film to music to literature', created by non-
native speakers in English that are making their way to the global market as 'markers of world
culture' (2001a:342-343). He identifies a conflict within this global movement, where on the
one hand it is continuing to diminish cultural diversity, while on the other, stimulating 'a new
spirit of unity between diverse peoples and nations', and giving minority nations the
opportunity to express themselves even though in a language that is not their own (ibid:343).
However, some post-colonial writers, such as Kenyan writer Ngũgĩ, stand firm in their belief
that African literature, 'can only be written in African languages', while other writers, such as
Nigerian writer Achebe, see writing in English as 'a new voice coming out of Africa, speaking
of the African experience in a world-wide language' (Pennycook1994:264). Achebe believes
in 'reusing' the language that was once forced upon them (ibid:260) and appropriating it to
serve 'as a way of giving voice to individual experience' (Gray et al 2008:54). Even though
the dissemination of cultural artefacts in English may be considered negative with regards to
minority languages, it allows small nations and their cultures to make headway in the world.
Due to world developments necessitating the need for knowing English, and the cultural
integration movement mentioned above, Modiano is convinced that English will continue to
have an impact on world affairs as a lingua franca, which gives all the more reason to
conserve linguistic diversity (2001a:344). However, 'demoting English and promoting the
learning of other languages', as he has often suggested in his article, will prove difficult
because of the impact that English has made worldwide (ibid). Again he urges practitioners to
teach a 'neutral' form of English, independent of any cultural legacy, possessing a phonology
that is 'more cross-culturally democratic' (Jenkins 2000:4), which will concentrate on 'the
acquisition of inter-cultural communicative skills' (Modiano 2001a:345) and not force
speakers to have to opt for one variety over another.
Conclusion
Modiano's discontent is evident. His main concern lies with the ELT practitioners and
language planners who view English as belonging to one dominant culture thus undermining
the learner's cultural integrity and marginalizing other varieties. He urges them to implement

8. learning strategies that will work towards preserving English as an international language. His
call for 'an ecology of language', which will protect languages and cultures from becoming
extinct (ibid) is imperative if we are to combat against the spread of English as linguistic
imperialism.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Bourhis, R. Y. (ed) (1984). Conflict and Language Planning in Quebec. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). On EFL Teachers, awareness, and agency. ELT Journal,
53/3:207-213.
Cummins, J. and M. Danesi. (1990). Heritage Languages: The Development and Denial of
Canada'a Linguistic Resources. Toronto: Our Schools/Our Selves Education Foundation.
Graddol, D. (1997). The Furure of English?. London: The British Council
Available at: http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-elt-future.pdf
[Accessed on: 27th December, 2008]
Gray, J., A. Pulverness, P.Andrews. (2008). ELT and its Contents. London:University of
East London.
Holborow, M. (1993). Reviews. ELT Journal, 47/4:358-360.
Honey, J. (1997). Language is Power: the Story of Standard English and its Enemies.
London: Faber and Faber.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: OUP.
Kachru, B. (ed.) (1982). The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.
Modiano, M. (2000). Euro English: Educational Standards in a Cross-Cultural Context. The
European English Messenger, vol.IX/1.
Available at: http://www.staff.unibe.ch/durmull/modiano.htm
[Accessed on 30th December, 2008]
Modiano, M. (2001a). Linguistic Imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL. ELT Journal,
55/4: 339-346.
Modiano, M. (2001b). Ideology and the ELT practitioner. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 11/2: 159-172.

9. Pennycook, A. (1994). The Cultrual Politics of English as an International Language.
London: Longman.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: OUP.
Platt, J., H. Weber, M. L. Ho. (1984). The New Englishes. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Rajagopalan, K. (1999). Of EFL teachers, conscience, and cowardice. ELT Journal, 53/3:
200-206.
Sowden, C. (2008). There's more to life than politics. ELT Journal, 62/3: 284-291.
Stubbs, M. (1990). Knowledge about Language. London: Institute of Education.
Trudgill, P. (1999). Standard English: What it isn't. London: Routledge.
Available at: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/SEtrudgill.htm
[Accessed on 30th December, 2008]
Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The Ownership of English. Tesol Quarterly, 28/2: 377-389.