Language and statecraft an old tool for new goals?
https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2021.19.1.64.9
Abstract
This paper investigates how language as a tool of statecraft has changed over time and whether it remains relevant and legitimate in the current globalised context. Viewing the issue from an interdisciplinary perspective, it considers the role language policies have played at different stages in history, from enabling European nation-states to forcibly to carve out a new identity around a unified language, to fulfilling the imperialist mission of ‘educating’ colonised populations in an attempt to generate lasting economic and cultural benefits for colonial powers. Language policies survived the decolonization process and took new soft power forms in an attempt to address current day challenges. The authors argue, based on the analysis of expert interviews and data sources (both primary and secondary), that while the discourse and means of implementing language policies have changed under new conditions – particularly the rejection of force in language promotion, the domination of English, the protection of minority dialects, and the technological changes linked to globalization – the belief in the power of language to shape allegiances remains, on the political level, unchanged.
About the Authors
A. Crowley-Vigneau
MGIMO University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anne Crowley-Vigneau
Moscow, 119454
F. le Saux
University of Reading
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Francoise le Saux
Reading, RG9 3AU
References
1. Bogaturov A. (2010). Delayed neutrality? Russia in Global Affairs. Vol. 8. No. 2. P. 116–128.
2. Bourdieu P. (2001). Contre-feux 2. Pour un mouvement social européen. Paris: Raisons d'agir. 112 p.
3. Brett K., Schaefer T. (2019). Formalizing the American brand: the case for the US culture, language, and soft-power institutes. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. Vol. 15. P. 124–133.
4. Burkhart L.M. (1989). The slippery earth: Nahua–Christian moral dialogue in sixteenth century Mexico. Tempe: University of Arizona Press. 242 P.
5. Chew G. (2007). The Confucius Institute in the world: an overview. CHC Bulletin. Singapore: Chinese Heritage Centre. Vol. 9. P. 13–19.
6. Chiang T.H., & Zhou Q. (2019). Can cultural localization protect national identity in the era of globalization? Educational Philosophy and Theory. Vol. 51. P. 541–545.
7. Citron S. (1992). L'histoire de France, autrement. Editions de l'Atelier. 242 p.
8. Clayton T. (1995). French colonial education. Education policy analysis archives. Vol. 3. No. 19. P. 1–14.
9. Connor W. (1994). Ethnonationalism: The quest for understanding. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 248 p.
10. Cortier C. (1998). Institution de l'Alliance française et émergence de la francophonie: politiques linguistiques et éducatives: 1880–1914 (Doctoral dissertation, Lyon 2).
11. Craith M.N. (Ed.). (2007). Language, power and identity politics. Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages. London: Springer. 272 p.
12. Crowley-Vigneau A., Baykov A.A., Kalyuzhnova Y. (2020). Implementation of International Norms in Russia: The Case of Higher Education. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 29. No. 8–9. P. 39–54. https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-8-9-39-54
13. Crystal D. (2003). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 229 p.
14. Dinnie K. (2015). Nation Branding: Concepts, Issues, and Practice, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. 306 p.
15. Durand J. (1996). Linguistic purification, the French nation-state and the linguist. Language, Culture and Communication in the New Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. P. 75–92.
16. Errington J. (2007). Linguistics in a colonial world: A story of language, meaning, and power. John Wiley & Sons. 210 p.
17. Fishman J.A. (2006). Language policy and language shift. In Ricento T. (ed.) An introduction to language policy: Theory and method. P. 311–328.
18. Flowerdew, J. (2019). The linguistic disadvantage of scholars who write in English as an additional language: Myth or reality. Language Teaching. Vol. 52. №2. P. 249–260.
19. Gardy P. (1990). Aux origines du discours francophoniste: le meurtre des patois et leur rachat par le français. Langue française. №85. P. 22–34.
20. Gil J. (2017). Soft Power and the worldwide promotion of Chinese language learning: the Confucius Institute project. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Vol. 167. 152 p.
21. Gramsci A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers. 473 p.
22. Grinina E., Romanova G. (2019). “You reap what you sow.” Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy. Vol. 17. No. 3. P. 66–79.
23. Hartig F. (2016). Chinese public diplomacy: The rise of the Confucius Institute. New York: Routledge. 204 p.
24. Heller M. (2002). Globalization and the commodification of bilingualism in Canada. Globalization and language teaching. P. 47–64.
25. Horne J. (2017). “To Spread the French Language Is to Extend the Patrie” The Colonial Mission of the Alliance Française. French Historical Studies. Vol. 40. №1. P. 95–127.
26. Jaschke P., Keita S. (2021). Say it like Goethe: Language learning facilities abroad and the self-selection of immigrants. Journal of Development Economics. Vol. 149. Art. 102597.
27. Jordan J.E., Stulberg A.N., Troitskiy M. (2021). Statecraft in U.S.-Russia Relations: Meaning, Dilemmas, and Significance. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 19. No. 1e. P. 4–17.
28. Jordan J.E., Stulberg A.N., Troitskiy M. (2021). Statecraft in U.S.-Russia Relations: Meaning, Dilemmas, and Significance. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 19. No. 1r. P. 6–25.
29. Lomer S. (2017). Soft power as a policy rationale for international education in the UK: a critical analysis. Higher Education. Vol. 74. No. 4. P. 581–598.
30. Lingard B. (2000). It is and it isn’t: Vernacular globalization, educational policy, and restructuring. In Burbules N. C., Torres C.A. (eds.), Globalization and education: Critical perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge. P. 79–108.
31. Majhanovich S. (2013). English as a tool of neo-colonialism and globalization in Asian contexts. In Y. Hébert, A.A. Abdi (eds.). Critical Perspectives on International Education. Comparative and International Education. Rotterdam: Brill Sense. P. 249–261.
32. Martin I.P. (2014). English language teaching in the Philippines. World Englishes. Vol. 33. No. 4. P. 472–485.
33. Mazrui A.A. (1975). The political sociology of the English language: an African perspective. The Hague: Mouton. 231 p.
34. Meyer J.W. (2007). Globalization: Theory and trends. International Journal of Comparative Sociology. Vol. 48. No. 4. P. 261–273.
35. Nye J.S. (2010). Global power shifts. TED talk. URL: http://www.ted.com/talks/joseph_nye_on_global_power_shifts (accessed: 11.10.2017).
36. Ohnesorge H.W. (2020). A Methodological Roadmap for the Study of Soft Power. In H.W. Ohnesorge (ed.). Soft Power: The Forces of Attraction in Internal Relations. Springer, Cham. P. 227–294.
37. Osborne M.E. (1969). The French presence in Cochinchina and Cambodia: Rule and response (1859–1905). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 359 p.
38. Pagani C. (2021) Statecraft migration: managing migration flows at a bilateral level. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 19. No. 1e. P. 79–91.
39. Ramirez N.F., Kuhl P. (2017). The brain science of bilingualism. YC Young Children. Vol. 72. No. 2. P. 38–44.
40. Robertson, R. (1994) 'Globalisation or Glocalisation'. Journal of International Communication. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 33–52.
41. Rosenau J.N. (1984). A pre-theory revisited: World politics in an era of cascading interdependence. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 28. No. 3. P. 245–305.
42. Saulière J. (2014). Corporate language: the blind spot of language policy? Reflections on France's Loi Toubon. Current Issues in Language Planning. Vol. 15. No. 2. P. 220–235.
43. Schriewer, J. (2003). Historicizing comparative methodology. In Schriewer J. (ed.). Discourse formation in comparative education (2nd ed). Oxford: Peter Lang. P. 3–52.
44. Sibayan B. (2000). 'Resulting Patterns of Sociolinguistic, Socioeconomic and Cultural Practice and Behavior After More than Four Hundred Years of Language Policy and Practice in the Philippines'. In Bautista M., Llamzon T., Sibayan B. (eds.) Parangal can Brother Andrew: Festschrift for Andrew Gonzales on his Sixtieth Birthday. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Phillipines. P. 247–261.
45. Smolicz J., Nical I. (1997). 'Exporting the European Idea of National Language: Some Educational Implications of the Use of English and Indigenous Languages in the Philippines'. International Review of Education. Vol. 43. No. 5–6. P. 1–21.
46. Tarr P.J. (2005). The education of the Thomasites: American school teachers in Philippine colonial society, 1901–1913 (PhD Diss, Cornwell University).
47. Todorov T. (1984). The conquest of America: the question of the other, trans. R. Howard. New York: Harper and Row. 274 p.
48. Van Parijs P. (2007). Tackling the anglophones’ free ride. AILA Review. Vol. 20. P. 72–86.
49. Walter H. (1994). French inside out: the worldwide development of the French language in the past, the present and the future. London: Routledge. 292 p.
50. Woodley D.B. (2016). Return to Clark Air Force Base: Establishing Permanent Military Bases in the Philippines as part of the United States Grand Strategy in the South China Sea. Air War College, Air University Maxwell Afb United States. 24 p.
51. Wright S. (2000). Community and communication: The role of language in nation state building and European integration. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Vol. 114. 280 p.
Review
For citations:
Crowley-Vigneau A., le Saux F. Language and statecraft an old tool for new goals? International Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. 2021;19(1):120-138. https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2021.19.1.64.9
Views:
404
Email this article 