Linguistic imperialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_imperialism

Linguistic imperialism or language imperialism is occasionally defined as "the transfer of a dominant language to other people". This language "transfer" comes about because of imperialism. The transfer is considered to be a demonstration of power; traditionally military power but also, in the modern world, economic power. Aspects of the dominant culture are usually transferred along with the language. In the modern world, linguistic imperialism may also be considered in the context of international development, affecting the standard by which organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank evaluate the trustworthiness and value of structural adjustment loans. Since the early 1990s, linguistic imperialism has attracted attention among scholars of applied linguistics. In particular, Robert Phillipson's 1992 book, Linguistic Imperialism, has led to considerable debate about its merits and shortcomings. Phillipson found denunciations of linguistic imperialism that dated back to Nazi critiques of the British Council (European aristocracy was, at the time, agreeing on the use of English), and to Soviet analyses of English as the language of world capitalism and world domination. In this vein, criticism of English as a world language is rooted in anti-globalism.

Definition

Linguistic imperialism is a form of linguicism which benefits and grants power to the dominating/oppressing language and its speakers. As summarized by linguists Heath Rose and John Conama, Dr. Phillipson argues that the defining characteristics of linguistic imperialism are:

1. As a form of linguicism, which manifests in favoring the dominant language over another along similar lines as racism and sexism.
2. As a structurally manifested idea, where more resources and infrastructure are given to the dominant language
3. As being ideological, in that it encourages beliefs that the dominant language form is more prestigious than others. These ideas are hegemonic and internalized and naturalized as being "normal".
4. As intertwined with the same structure as imperialism in culture, education, media, and politics.
5. As having an exploitative essence, which causes injustice and inequality between those who use the dominant language and those who do not.
6. As having a subtractive influence on other languages, in that learning the dominant language is at the expense of others.
7. As being contested and resisted, because of these factors.

Though it is not easy to determine the intentions of specific policies which have led to linguicism, some scholars believe that intent can be proven by observing whether imperialist practices are continued once their sociolinguistic, sociological, psychological, political, and educational harm of other languages are made aware.

English

Phillipson defines English linguistic imperialism as "the dominance of English... asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages." English is often called a worldwide "lingua franca", but Phillipson argues that when its dominance leads to a linguicide, it can be more aptly titled a "lingua frankensteinia".

Phillipson's theory supports the historic spread of English as an international language and that language's continued dominance, particularly in postcolonial settings such as India, Pakistan, Uganda, Zimbabwe, etc., but also increasingly in "neo-colonial" settings such as continental Europe. His theory draws mainly on Johan Galtung's imperialism theory, Antonio Gramsci's social theory, and in particular on his notion of cultural hegemony.

A central theme of Phillipson's theory is the complex hegemonic processes which, he asserts, continue to sustain the pre-eminence of English in the world today. His book analyzes the British Council's use of rhetoric to promote English, and discusses key tenets of English applied linguistics and English-language-teaching methodology. These tenets hold that:

• English is best taught monolingually ("the monolingual fallacy");
• the ideal teacher is a native speaker ("the native-speaker fallacy");
• the earlier English is taught, the better the results ("the early-start fallacy");^[
• the more English is taught, the better the results ("the maximum-exposure fallacy");
• if other languages are used much, standards of English will drop ("the subtractive fallacy").

According to Phillipson, those who promote English—organizations such as the British Council, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and individuals such as operators of English-language schools—use three types of argument:

• Intrinsic arguments describe the English language as providential, rich, noble and interesting. Such arguments tend to assert what English is and what other languages are not.
• Extrinsic arguments point out that English is well-established: that it has many speakers, and that there are trained teachers and a wealth of teaching material.
• Functional arguments emphasize the usefulness of English as a gateway to the world.

Other arguments for English are

• its economic utility: it enables people to use technology;
• its ideological function: it stands for modernity;
• its status as symbol for material advance and efficiency.

Another theme in Phillipson's work is "linguicism"—the kind of prejudice which can lead to endangered languages becoming extinct or losing their local eminence due to the rise and competing prominence of English.

Other languages

In 1976, Black schoolchildren in Soweto protested against being taught in Afrikaans, which had been pushed by the Apartheid authorities who were concerned about the Black population's growing refusal to speak it. They reasoned that by only having access to Afrikaner resources, the South African government could control them more than by having access to a global language i.e. English. 176 children died for the right to be taught in English. The Uprising became a turning point in the overthrowing of Apartheid years later.

At various times, especially in colonial settings or where a dominant culture has sought to unify a region under its control, a similar phenomenon has arisen. In the Roman Empire, Latin—originally the language of a limited region in central Italy—was imposed first on the rest of Italy and later on parts of Europe, largely displacing local languages, while in Roman Africa Latin was dominant only until it and the native languages were displaced by Arabization.

Anatolia had similar linguistic diversity when it was ruled by small native states. Under the Persian and Hellenistic empires, the tongue of the conqueror served as the lingua franca. The indigenous Anatolian languages disappeared.

In the Far East, Africa and Latin America, regional languages have been or are being coercively replaced or slighted—Tibetan and regional Chinese varieties by Mandarin Chinese, Ainu and Ryukyuan by Japanese, Quechua and Mesoamerican languages by Spanish, Malayo-Polynesian languages by Malay, Philippine languages by Filipino/Tagalog and so on. Arabization has eliminated many indigenous languages in North Africa and restricted Coptic to sacred use.

The English language during the Middle Ages was an object of linguistic imperialism by the French language, particularly following the Norman conquest. For hundreds of years, French or Anglo-Norman was the language of administration (See Law French) and therefore a language of higher status in England. Latin remained the tongue of church and learning. Although many words introduced by the Normans are today indistinguishable by most English-speakers from native Germanic words, later-learned loanwords, copied from Latin or French may sound more "cultured" to a native English-speaker.

Following the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire over much of present-day Germany and Central Europe, the German language and its dialects became the preferred language of many Central-European nobility. With varying success, German spread across much of Central and Eastern Europe as a language of trade and status. This ended with World War II.

French has also expanded. Languages such as Occitan, Breton, Basque, Catalan and Corsican have been slighted in France. This process, known as Francization, often causes resistance amongst the subject peoples, leading to demands for independence. Examples of this can still be found in Brittany and Flanders (Belgium).

Spanish and, to a lesser extent, Portuguese colonization, made these languages prevalent in South America and in parts of Africa and Asia (the Philippines, Macau and for a short time Formosa). In Iberia, Castilian Spanish, as spoken in the kingdom of Castile spread and was imposed on other peoples and territories of Spain, becoming the only official language of the state from the 18th to the 20th century. It was labeled "the companion of the Empire" by Antonio de Nebrija (1492) in the introduction to his Gramática de la lengua castellana.

Russian linguistic imperialism can be seen in Belarus both in the former dispute over the name of the country (Belarus vs Belorussia) and in the common spelling of the name of their president. English transcription has overtaken the Russian form Alexander Lukashenko instead of Belarusian form Alyaksandr Lukashenka.

Critique

Many scholars have participated in lively discussions of Phillipson's claims. Alan Davies, for instance, envisions the ghost of Phillipson haunting the Department of Applied Linguistics in Edinburgh:

'Round up the usual suspects', he cries, outing those who have pretended all these years merely to teach applied linguistics, but who have really been plotting with the British Council to take over the world.

For Davies, two cultures inhabit linguistic imperialism: one, a culture of guilt ("colonies should never have happened"); the other, that of romantic despair ("we shouldn't be doing what we are doing"). Rajagopalan goes a step farther and maintains that Phillipson's book has led to a guilt complex among English language learning and teaching (ELT) professionals.

Davies also argues that Phillipson's claims are not falsifiable: what "if the dominated... wanted to adopt English and continue to want to keep it? RP's unfalsifiable answer must be that they don't, they can't, they've been persuaded against their better interests." It has thus been argued that Phillipson's theory is patronizing in its implication that developing countries lack independent decision-making capacity (to adopt or not to adopt ELT). In the context of Nigeria, Bisong holds that people in the "periphery" use English pragmatically—they send their children to English-language schools precisely because they want them to grow up multilingual. Regarding Phillipson, Bisong maintains that "to interpret such actions as emanating from people who are victims of Centre linguistic imperialism is to bend sociolinguistic evidence to suit a preconceived thesis". If English should be abolished because it is foreign, Bisong argues, then Nigeria itself would also have to be dissolved, because it was conceived as a colonial structure.

Furthermore, the assumption that the English language itself is imperialistic has come under attack. Henry Widdowson has argued that "there is a fundamental contradiction in the idea that the language of itself exerts hegemonic control: namely that if this were the case, you would never be able to challenge such control". Additionally, the idea that the promotion of English necessarily implies a demotion of local languages has been challenged. Holborrow points out that "not all Englishes in the centre dominate, nor are all speakers in the periphery equally discriminated against". Irish English, for instance, could be regarded as a non-dominant centre variety of English. 

Some scholars believe that English's dominance is not due to specific language policies, but rather as a side-effect of the spread of English and American powers through colonization and globalization.

Thus it could be argued that, while those who follow Phillipson see choices about language as externally imposed, the other camp sees them as personal choices.

Response

Those who support the arguments favoring the existence of linguistic imperialism claim that arguments against it are often advanced by monolingual native-speakers of English who may see the current status of English as a fact worthy of celebration.

Those who see the increasing spread of English in the world as a worrying development (which lowers the status of local and regional languages as well as potentially undermining or eroding cultural values) are likely to be more receptive to Phillipson's views. Alastair Pennycook, Suresh Canagarajah, Adrian Holliday and Julian Edge fall into this group and are described as critical applied linguists.

However, Henry Widdowson’s remarks on critical discourse analysis may also be applied to the critical applied linguists:

It ought surely to be possible to say that an argument is confused, or an analysis flawed, without denying the justice of the cause they support. My view would be that if a case is just then we should look for ways of supporting it by coherent argument... And I would indeed argue that to do otherwise is to do a disservice to the cause. For the procedures of ideological exposure by expedient analysis... can, of course be taken up to further any cause, right wing as well as left.... If you have the conviction and commitment, you will always find your witch.

As a response to English linguistic imperialism, de-anglicisation became a matter of national pride in some places and especially in regions that were once under colonial rule, where vestiges of colonial domination are a sensitive subject. Following centuries of English rule in Ireland, an argument for de-anglicisation was delivered before the Irish National Literary Society in Dublin, 25 November 1892; "When we speak of 'The Necessity for De-Anglicising the Irish Nation', we mean it, not as a protest against imitating what is best in the English people, for that would be absurd, but rather to show the folly of neglecting what is Irish, and hastening to adopt, pell-mell, and indiscriminately, everything that is English, simply because it is English." Despite its status as an official language, the Irish language has been reduced to a minority language in Ireland as a result of centuries of English rule, as is the case in North America where their indigenous languages have been replaced by that of the colonists, and continued to decline even after independence.

According to Ghil'ad Zuckermann, "Native tongue title and language rights should be promoted. The government ought to define Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander vernaculars as official languages of Australia. We must change the linguistic landscape of Whyalla and elsewhere. Signs should be in both English and the local indigenous language. We ought to acknowledge intellectual property of indigenous knowledge including language, music and dance."

Appropriation

Some who reject the idea of linguistic imperialism argue that the global spread of English is better understood in the framework of appropriation—that English is used around the world for local purposes. In addition to the example of Nigeria, above, the following examples have been given:

• Demonstrators in non-English-speaking countries often use signs in English to convey their demands to TV audiences around the world. In some cases, the demonstrator may not even understand what the sign he is carrying says.
• Bobda shows how Cameroon has moved away from a mono-cultural, Anglo-centered way of teaching English and has gradually accommodated teaching materials to a Cameroonian context. Non-Western topics are treated, such as rule by emirs, traditional medicine, and polygamy. Bobda argues for bi-cultural, Cameroonian and Anglo-American education.
• Kramsch and Sullivan describe how Western methodology and textbooks have been appropriated to suit local Vietnamese culture.
• The Pakistani textbook Primary Stage English includes lessons such as "Pakistan, My Country", "Our Flag," and "Our Great Leader", which might sound jingoistic to western ears. Within the native culture, however, establishing a connection between ELT, patriotism and the Muslim faith is seen as an aim of ELT, as the chairman of the Punjab Textbook Board openly states: "The board... takes care, through these books to inoculate in the students a love of the Islamic values and awareness to guard the ideological frontiers of your [the student's] home lands."

Such an "internationalization" of English may also offer new possibilities to English native-speakers. McCabe elaborates:

...whereas for two centuries we exported our language and our customs in hot pursuit of... fresh markets, we now find that our language and our customs are returned to us but altered so that they can be used by others... so that our own language and culture discover new possibilities, fresh contradictions.

Tangible symbol systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangible_symbol_systems 

 

Tangible symbols are a type of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) that uses objects or pictures that share a perceptual relationship with the items they represent as symbols. A tangible symbol's relation to the item it represents is perceptually obvious and concrete - the visual or tactile properties of the symbol resemble the intended item. Tangible Symbols can easily be manipulated and are most strongly associated with the sense of touch. These symbols can be used by individuals who are not able to communicate using speech or other abstract symbol systems, such as sign language. However, for those who have the ability to communicate using speech, learning to use tangible symbols does not hinder further developing acquisition of natural speech and/or language development, and may even facilitate it.

Definition

The term tangible symbols was first developed by Charity Rowland and Philip Schweigert, and refers to two-dimensional pictures or three-dimensional objects used as symbols to convey meaning. The items are termed "tangible" because they are concrete items that can be manipulated by the user and communication partner. Symbols can be used individually or combined with other symbols in order to create new messages. Tangible symbols are used as a means of communication for individuals who are unable to understand or communicate using abstract systems, such as speech or sign language.

Properties of tangible symbols include permanency, capacity to be manipulated by both the user and the communication partner, and an obvious relationship between the symbol and the referent. They can represent items, people, activities and/or events, and look or feel similar to what they refer to. For example, a cup can be used as three-dimensional tangible symbol to represent the action: "drink". A photograph of a cup can be used as a two-dimensional tangible symbol to also represent the action : "drink". Two- and three-dimensional symbols are used to fit the cognitive and sensory abilities of the individual, as well as the individual's unique experiences.

Rowland and Schweigert use the term tangible symbols to refer to conceptually tangible items like two-dimensional pictures or three-dimensional objects. However, other authors, such as Beukelman and Mirenda, use the term to exclusively describe three-dimensional physical objects that display concrete properties such as shape or texture.

According to Rowland and Schweigert, "for some individuals, the use of tangible symbols may be used to bridge the gap between gestural communication and the use of formal language systems. For others, tangible symbols may represent an ultimate level of communicative competence."

Level of Communication	Means of Communication
Presymbolic	Body and limb movements, Gestures, Vocalizations
Concrete Symbolic	Symbolic gestures and vocalizations, Tangible Symbols: Objects (three-dimensional) & Pictures (two-dimensional)
Abstract Symbolic	Speech, Sign Language, Printed Language, Braille, Abstract shapes, Abstract graphics

History

Historically, objects and pictures have frequently been used as communication devices. Many authors have also used picture symbols, such as line drawings and photographs to develop language in individuals with little or no speech and/or cognitive disabilities. Tangible symbols emerged from Van Dijk’s work in the 1960s using objects as symbols to develop language in deaf-blind children. In turn, Van Dijk’s work was based on the concept "symbol formation" developed by Werner and Kaplan (1963), who theorized that "symbol formation" referred to the process of developing language by creating symbols in our minds.

Types of tangible symbols

Rowland and Schweigert propose that tangible symbols can be divided into hierarchical categories, ranging from most concrete to most abstract symbols:

• Identical objects are real items that are equal to their referent and are the most concrete type of tangible symbol. An example includes using a toothbrush to represent "brush your teeth". Beukelman and Mirenda includes in this category miniature objects: items that are smaller than what they symbolize, such as having a small toy toilet indicate "toilet".
• Partial/associated objects refers to a portion of the object they represent, and therefore are less concrete than identical objects. For example, a shoelace would symbolize "shoes".
• Symbols with one or two shared features have a resemblance to their referent, like using a mould of a loaf of bread for "bread". This category is sometimes included in the partial/associated objects category.
• Artificial symbols are abstract symbols that do not have a direct resemblance to their referent, such as having a 3D shape (i.e. an apple) that is attached to a cafe door be used as the symbol for "cafe". Beukelman and Mirenda include textured symbols in this category. An example of a textured symbol is using a piece of spandex material to denote "bathing suit".
• Three-dimensional symbols may be identical objects, parts of objects, or associated objects. A three-dimensional symbol will share similar features of the focused object, creating a meaningful symbol.
• Two-dimensional pictures, such as photographs and line drawings, are the most abstract type of tangible symbols. They are commonly used for both expressive and receptive communication, whereas the three-dimensional symbols are often used for receptive only communication (i.e. to cue the individual for upcoming events). 

The type of tangible symbol used is chosen based on the cognitive and sensory abilities of the learner/user. The meaning behind each symbol is not universal, but by using a symbol the individual is familiar with, a meaningful symbol is created. Tangible symbols should be constructed by meaningful and motivating symbols that will provide the individual with the most opportunities to practice using the new system.

Users of tangible symbols

Individuals who can benefit from using tangible symbols include those who may lack the skills to communicate using verbal speech or other various communication systems such as sign language. Users of tangible symbols may include individuals with cognitive disabilities (including developmental delay and intellectual disability), sensory and/or visual impairments (blindness and/or deafblindness), developmental disabilities (such as autism spectrum disorder), and orthopedic impairments. Rowland and Schweigert claim that tangible symbols do not require the use of high demands on the learner’s cognitive abilities, memory, visual perception, and motor abilities because they are:

• Iconic and concrete: they have a clear connection what they refer to.
• Permanent: the user does not need to recall the object, but simply be able to recognize them.
• Manipulable: can be picked up and used by the learner and who s/he is communicating with.
• Tactually discriminable: can be identified by touch.
• May be indicated through a simple motor response: such as eye gazing, touching, or pointing.

Furthermore, simple behavioral responses can be used with tangible items. For example, learners that are unable to speak can simply point, touch, pick up, or look (in cases of severe motoric impairment) at the object to answer a question or make a request. Finally, three-dimensional objects can be distinguished from one another using touch, and therefore they are suitable for people with visual impairments or blindness. A study by Rowland and Schweigert found individuals who were already able to communicate using gestures or vocalizations more readily learned to use tangible symbols than those who did not have intentional pre-symbolic communication skills.

Application of tangible symbols

Presentation format depends on the users visual scanning and motoric ability. The tangible symbols can placed in front of the user within reach, placed on a board for visual scanning, or placed in a book for access.

Typically, tangible symbols are custom made and tailored to the individual child. If pre-made sets are used, it is assumed that the symbols are familiar and motivating for the user. It is important to utilize frequently occurring and highly motivating symbols in order to optimize opportunities for use.

Tangible symbol system offers a manual and DVD as well as an online course. For more information on tangible symbol system instructional strategies, please reference: http://designtolearn.com/products/tangible_symbol_systems.

Universal tangible symbol system

In 2009, Ellen Trief, Susan M. Bruce, Paul W. Cascella, and Sarah Ivy created a Universal Tangible Symbol System. They began by developing a survey to determine which tangible symbols were already in use, new activities and concepts for which tangible systems are needed, and participant preferences for tangible symbols from a pilot study. Participants included teachers and speech-language pathologists from four New York City schools. Following the survey, an advisory board consisting of directors of the New York City schools, speech-language pathologists, the designer and manufacturer of the symbols, a representative from the Perkins School for the Blind, college professors, and a graduate research assistant reviewed and discussed the results. This resulted in the establishment of the 55 universal tangible symbols seen in the chart below. However, this universal tangible symbol system should not replace a system already established for an individual.

Activity	Chosen symbol
Dismissal	Strap with a buckle
Bathroom	White tile with a black edge
Gym	Tennis Ball
Speech	Mouth or lips
Classroom	Doorknob
Literacy	Small, thick book
Circle time	Wooden circle
Outside	Three stones
Music	Bells
Occupational therapy	Three beads
Physical therapy	Squishy ball
Snack	Small, empty snack bag
Cookie	Cookie
Computer	Floppy disc
Art	Paintbrush
Sensory	Small tube of lotion
Rest time	Small square of a blanket
Nurse's office	Large Band-Aid
Toothbrush	Toothbrush
Cooking	Measuring spoons
Orientation and mobility	Tip of a long cane
Arrival	Plastic hands
Math	Unifix cube
Science	Magnet
Vision	Small eyeglasses
Center time	Clothes pin
Drink	Cup
Lunchroom	Spoon
Break	Timer
No	Raised "X"
Community	Piece of a tactile map
Stander	Vinyl square
Orthodics	A half-cup measuring cup with a Velcro strip
Calendar	Piece of a calendar from American Printing House for the Blind
Walk	Shoe or sneaker
Light box	Plastic piece from a light-box kit
More	Piece of red velvet
Games	Spinner
Food	Small plate
Finished	Spool on a cord
Juice	Juice box
Bubbles	Bubble wand
Milk	Milk box
Yes	Raised "O"
"Itsy Bitsy Spider"	Plastic spider
"Twinkle, Twinkle"	Raised, shiny star
"Wheels on the Bus"	School bus
"Alphabet Song"	Raised letters "A," "B," and "C"
Bedtime	Piece of a comforter
Park	Metal chain
Church or temple	Smooth molding in the shape of a roof
Bath time	Small bar of soap
Set the table	Piece of a placemat
Do the dishes	Small dish
Car ride	Car keys or house keys

Louis Braille

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Braille

Louis Braille
Bust of Louis Braille by Étienne Leroux at the Bibliothèque nationale de France
Born	4 January 1809 Coupvray, France
Died	6 January 1852 (aged 43) Paris, France
Resting place	Panthéon, Paris and Coupvray
Parent(s)	Monique and Simon-René Braille

Louis Braille was a French educator and inventor of a system of reading and writing for use by the blind or visually impaired. His system remains virtually unchanged to this day, and is known worldwide simply as braille.

Blinded in both eyes as a result of an early childhood accident, Louis Braille mastered his disability while still a boy. He excelled in his education and received a scholarship to France's Royal Institute for Blind Youth. While still a student there, he began developing a system of tactile code that could allow blind people to read and write quickly and efficiently. Inspired by the military cryptography of Charles Barbier, Braille constructed a new method built specifically for the needs of the blind. He presented his work to his peers for the first time in 1824.

In adulthood, Louis Braille served as a professor at the Institute and had an avocation as a musician, but he largely spent the remainder of his life refining and extending his system. It went unused by most educators for many years after his death, but posterity has recognized braille as a revolutionary invention, and it has been adapted for use in languages worldwide.

Early life

Birthplace of Louis Braille in Coupvray

Louis Braille was born in Coupvray, a small town about twenty miles east of Paris, on 4 January 1809. He and his three elder siblings – Monique Catherine (b. 1793), Louis-Simon (b. 1795), and Marie Céline (b. 1797) – lived with their parents, Simon-René and Monique, on three hectares of land and vineyards in the countryside. Simon-René maintained a successful enterprise as a leatherer and maker of horse tack.

As soon as he could walk, Braille spent time playing in his father's workshop. At the age of three, the child was playing with some of the tools, trying to make holes in a piece of leather with an awl. Squinting closely at the surface, he pressed down hard to drive the point in, and the awl glanced across the tough leather and struck him in one of his eyes. A local physician bound and patched the affected eye and even arranged for Braille to be met the next day in Paris by a surgeon, but no treatment could save the damaged organ. In agony, the young boy suffered for weeks as the wound became severely infected—an infection which then spread to his other eye, likely due to sympathetic ophthalmia.

Louis Braille survived the torment of the infection but by the age of five he was completely blind in both eyes. Due to his young age, Braille did not realize at first that he had lost his sight, and often asked why it was always dark. His parents made many efforts – quite uncommon for the era – to raise their youngest child in a normal fashion, and he prospered in their care. He learned to navigate the village and country paths with canes his father hewed for him, and he grew up seemingly at peace with his disability. Braille's bright and creative mind impressed the local teachers and priests, and he was accommodated with higher education.

Education

Braille studied in Coupvray until the age of ten. Because of his combination of intelligence and diligence, Braille was permitted to attend one of the first schools for blind children in the world, the Royal Institute for Blind Youth, since renamed to the National Institute for Blind Youth in Paris. Braille, the last of the family's children to leave the household, departed for the school in February 1819. At that time the Royal Institute was an underfunded, ramshackle affair, but it provided a relatively stable environment for blind children to learn and associate together.

Haüy system

The children were taught how to read by a system devised by the school's founder, Valentin Haüy. Not blind himself, Haüy was a philanthropist who devoted his life to helping the blind. He designed and manufactured a small library of books for the children using a technique of embossing heavy paper with the raised imprints of Latin letters. Readers would trace their fingers over the text, comprehending slowly but in a traditional fashion which Haüy could appreciate.

Bust and awl exhibit at the Braille birthplace museum in Coupvray

Braille was helped by the Haüy books, but he also despaired over their lack of depth: the amount of information kept in such books was necessarily small. Because the raised letters were made in a complex artisanal process using wet paper pressed against copper wire, the children could not hope to "write" by themselves. So that the young Louis could send letters back home, Simon-René provided him with an alphabet made from bits of thick leather. It was a slow and cumbersome process, but the boy could at least trace the letters' outlines and write his first sentences.

The handcrafted Haüy books all came in uncomfortable sizes and weights for children. They were laboriously constructed, very fragile, and expensive to obtain: when Haüy's school first opened, it had a total of three books. Nonetheless, Haüy promoted their use with zeal. To him, the books presented a system which would be readily approved by educators and indeed they seemed – to the sighted – to offer the best achievable results. Braille and his schoolmates, however, could detect all too well the books' crushing limitations. Nonetheless, Haüy's efforts still provided a breakthrough achievement – the recognition of the sense of touch as a workable strategy for sightless reading. The Haüy system's main drawback was that it was "talking to the fingers with the language of the eye".

Teacher and musician

Braille read the Haüy books repeatedly, and he was equally attentive to the oral instruction offered by the school. He proved to be a highly proficient student and, after he had exhausted the school's curriculum, he was immediately asked to remain as a teacher's aide. By 1833, he was elevated to a full professorship. For much of the rest of his life, Braille stayed at the Institute where he taught history, geometry, and algebra.

Braille's ear for music enabled him to become an accomplished cellist and organist in classes taught by Jean-Nicolas Marrigues. Later in life, his musical talents led him to play the organ for churches all over France. A devout Catholic, Braille held the position of organist in Paris at the Church of Saint-Nicolas-des-Champs from 1834 to 1839, and later at the Church of Saint-Vincent-de-Paul.

Braille system

The first version of braille, composed for the French alphabet

Braille was determined to invent a system of reading and writing that could bridge the gap in communication between the sighted and the blind. In his own words: "Access to communication in the widest sense is access to knowledge, and that is vitally important for us if we [the blind] are not to go on being despised or patronized by condescending sighted people. We do not need pity, nor do we need to be reminded we are vulnerable. We must be treated as equals – and communication is the way this can be brought about."

Three forms of the letters "A" and "Z"

Origins

In 1821, Braille learned of a communication system devised by Captain Charles Barbier of the French Army. Some sources depict Braille learning about it from a newspaper account read to him by a friend, while others say the officer, aware of its potential, made a special visit to the school. In either case, Barbier willingly shared his invention called "night writing" which was a code of dots and dashes impressed into thick paper. These impressions could be interpreted entirely by the fingers, letting soldiers share information on the battlefield without having light or needing to speak. The captain's code turned out to be too complex to use in its original military form, but it inspired Braille to develop a system of his own.

Design

Braille worked tirelessly on his ideas, and his system was largely completed by 1824, when he was fifteen years old. From Barbier's night writing, he innovated by simplifying its form and maximizing its efficiency. He made uniform columns for each letter, and he reduced the twelve raised dots to six. He published his system in 1829, and by the second edition in 1837 he had discarded the dashes because they were too difficult to read. Crucially, Braille's smaller cells were capable of being recognized as letters with a single touch of a finger.

Braille created his own raised-dot system by using an awl, the same kind of implement which had blinded him. In the process of designing his system, he also designed an ergonomic interface for using it, based on Barbier's own slate and stylus tools. By soldering two metal strips across the slate, he created a secure area for the stylus which would keep the lines straight and readable.

By these modest means, Braille constructed a robust communication system. "It bears the stamp of genius" wrote Dr. Richard Slating French, former director of the California School for the Blind, "like the Roman alphabet itself".

Musical adaptation

The system was soon extended to include braille musical notation. Passionate about his own music, Braille took meticulous care in its planning to ensure that the musical code would be "flexible enough to meet the unique requirements of any instrument". In 1829, he published the first book about his system, Method of Writing Words, Music, and Plain Songs by Means of Dots, for Use by the Blind and Arranged for Them. Ironically this book was first printed by the raised letter method of the Haüy system.

Publications

Braille produced several written works about braille and as general education for the blind. Method of Writing Words, Music, and Plain Songs... (1829) was revised and republished in 1837; his mathematics guide, Little Synopsis of Arithmetic for Beginners, entered use in 1838; and his monograph New Method for Representing by Dots the Form of Letters, Maps, Geometric Figures, Musical Symbols, etc., for Use by the Blind was first published in 1839. Many of Braille's original printed works remain available at the Braille birthplace museum in Coupvray.

Decapoint

New Method for Representing by Dots... (1839) put forth Braille's plan for a new writing system with which blind people could write letters that could be read by sighted people. Called decapoint, the system combined his method of dot-punching with a new specialized grill which Braille devised to overlay the paper. When used with an associated number table (also designed by Braille and requiring memorization), the grill could permit a blind writer to faithfully reproduce the standard alphabet.

After the introduction of decapoint, Braille gave assistance to his friend Pierre-François-Victor Foucault, who was working on the development of his Raphigraphe, a device that could emboss letters in the manner of a typewriter. Foucault's machine was hailed as a great success and was exhibited at the World's Fair in Paris in 1855.

Later life

Although Braille was admired and respected by his pupils, his writing system was not taught at the Institute during his lifetime. The successors of Valentin Haüy, who had died in 1822, showed no interest in altering the established methods of the school, and indeed, they were actively hostile to its use. Dr. Alexandre François-René Pignier, headmaster at the school, was dismissed from his post after he had a history book translated into braille.

Braille had always been a sickly child, and his condition worsened in adulthood. A persistent respiratory illness, long believed to be tuberculosis, dogged him. Despite the lack of a cure at the time, Braille lived with the illness for 16 years. By the age of forty, he was forced to relinquish his position as a teacher. When his condition reached mortal danger, he was admitted to the infirmary at the Royal Institution, where he died in 1852, two days after he had reached the age of forty-three.

Legacy

Braille's memorial in the Panthéon

Through the overwhelming insistence of the blind pupils, Braille's system was finally adopted by the Institute in 1854, two years after his death. The system spread throughout the French-speaking world, but was slower to expand in other places. However, by the time of the first all-European conference of teachers of the blind in 1873, the cause of braille was championed by Dr. Thomas Rhodes Armitage and thereafter its international use increased rapidly. By 1882, Dr. Armitage was able to report that "There is now probably no institution in the civilized world where braille is not used except in some of those in North America." Eventually even these holdouts relented: braille was officially adopted by schools for the blind in the United States in 1916, and a universal braille code for English was formalized in 1932.

New variations in braille technology continue to grow, including such innovations as braille computer terminals; RoboBraille email delivery service; and Nemeth Braille, a comprehensive system for mathematical and scientific notation. Almost two centuries after its invention, braille remains a system of powerful and enduring utility.

Honors and tributes

The immense personal legacy of Louis Braille was described in a 1952 essay by T.S. Eliot:

"Perhaps the most enduring honor to the memory of Louis Braille is the half-conscious honor we pay him by applying his name to the script he invented – and, in this country [England], adapting the pronunciation of his name to our own language. We honor Braille when we speak of braille. His memory has in this way a security greater than that of the memories of many men more famous in their day."

Braille's childhood home in Coupvray is a listed historic building and houses the Louis Braille Museum. A large monument to him was erected in the town square which was itself renamed Braille Square. On the centenary of his death, his remains were moved to the Panthéon in Paris. In a symbolic gesture, Braille's hands were left in Coupvray, reverently buried near his home.

Postage stamp, East Germany, 1975

 

Dollar coin (USA, 2009), issued for Braille's birthday bicentennial

Statues and other memorials to Louis Braille can be found around the world. He has been commemorated in postage stamps worldwide, and the asteroid 9969 Braille was named for him in 1992. The Encyclopædia Britannica lists him among the "100 Most Influential Inventors Of All Time".

The 200th anniversary of Braille's birth in 2009 was celebrated throughout the world by exhibitions and symposiums about his life and achievements. Among the commemorations, Belgium and Italy struck 2-euro coins, India struck a 2-rupee coin, and the USA struck a one dollar coin, all in Braille's honor.

World Braille Day is celebrated every year on Braille's birthday, January 4.

In popular culture

Because of his accomplishments as a young boy, Braille holds a special place as a hero for children, and he has been the subject of a large number of works of juvenile literature. Other appearances in the arts include the American TV special Young Heroes: Louis Braille (2010); the French TV movie Une lumière dans la nuit (2008) (released in English as The Secret of Braille); and the dramatic play Braille: The Early Life of Louis Braille (1989) by Lola and Coleman Jennings. In music, Braille's life was subject of the song Merci, Louis, composed by the Halifax singer-songwriter Terry Kelly, chair of the Canadian Braille Literacy Foundation. The Braille Legacy, a musical which tells the story of Louis Braille, directed by Thom Southerland and starring Jérôme Pradon, debuted at the Charing Cross Theatre in April 2017.

Global language system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_language_system 

 

The global language system is the "ingenious pattern of connections between language groups". Dutch sociologist Abram de Swaan developed this theory in 2001 in his book Words of the World: The Global Language System and according to him, "the multilingual connections between language groups do not occur haphazardly, but, on the contrary, they constitute a surprisingly strong and efficient network that ties together – directly or indirectly – the six billion inhabitants of the earth." The global language system draws upon the world system theory to account for the relationships between the world's languages and divides them into a hierarchy consisting of four levels, namely the peripheral, central, supercentral and hypercentral languages.

Theory

Background

According to de Swaan, the global language system has been constantly evolving since the time period of the early 'military-agrarian' regimes. Under these regimes, the rulers imposed their own language and so the first 'central' languages emerged, linking the peripheral languages of the agrarian communities via bilingual speakers to the language of the conquerors. Then was the formation of empires, which resulted in the next stage of integration of the world language system.

Firstly, Latin emerged from Rome. Under the rule of the Roman Empire, which ruled an extensive group of states, the usage of Latin stretched along the Mediterranean coast, the southern half of Europe, and more sparsely to the North and then into the Germanic and Celtic lands. Thus, Latin evolved to become a central language in Europe from 27 BC to 476 AD. 

Secondly, there was the widespread usage of the pre-classical version of Han Chinese in contemporary China due to the unification of China in 221 BC by Qin Shi Huang.

Thirdly, Sanskrit started to become widely spoken in South Asia from the widespread teaching of Hinduism and Buddhism in South Asian countries.

Fourthly, the expansion of the Arabic empire also led to the increased usage of Arabic as a language in the Afro-Eurasian land mass.

Military conquests of preceding centuries generally determine the distribution of languages today. Supercentral languages spread by land and sea. Land-bound languages spread via marching empires: German, Russian, Arabic, Hindi, Chinese and Japanese. However, when the conquerors were defeated and were forced to move out of the territory, the spread of the languages receded. As a result, some of these languages are currently barely supercentral languages and are instead confined to their remaining state territories, as is evident from German, Russian and Japanese. 

On the other hand, sea-bound languages spread by conquests overseas: English, French, Portuguese, Spanish. Consequently, these languages became widespread in areas settled by European colonisers and relegated the indigenous people and their languages to peripheral positions. 

Besides, the world-systems theory also allowed the global language system to expand further. It focuses on the existence of the core, semi-peripheral and peripheral nations. The core countries are the most economically powerful and the wealthiest countries. Besides, they also have a strong governmental system in the country, which oversees the bureaucracies in the governmental departments. There is also the prevalent existence of the bourgeois, and core nations have significant influence over the non-core, smaller nations. Historically, the core countries were found in northwestern Europe and include countries such as England, France and the Netherlands. They were the dominant countries that had colonized many other nations from the early 15th century to the early 19th century.

Then is the existence of the periphery countries, the countries with the slowest economic growth. They also have relatively weak governments and a poor social structure and often depend on primary industries as the main source of economic activity for the country.

The extracting and exporting of raw materials from the peripheral nations to core nations is the activity bringing about the most economic benefits to the country. Much of the population that is poor and uneducated, and the countries are also extensively influenced by core nations and the multinational corporations found there. Historically, peripheral nations were found outside Europe, the continent of colonial masters. Many countries in Latin America were peripheral nations during the period of colonization, and today peripheral countries are in sub-Saharan Africa.

Lastly, the presence of the semiperiphery countries, those in between the core and the periphery. They tend to be those which started out as peripheral nations and are currently moving towards industrialization and the development of more diversified labour markets and economies. They can as well come about from declining core countries. They are not dominant players in the international trade market. As compared to the peripheral nations, semi-peripheries are not as susceptible to manipulation by the core countries. However, most of these nations have economic or political relations with the core. Semi-peripheries also tend to exert influence and control over peripheries and can serve to be a buffer between the core and peripheral nations and ease political tensions. Historically, Spain and Portugal were semi-peripheral nations after they fell from their dominant core positions. As they still maintained a certain level of influence and dominance in Latin America over their colonies, they could still maintain their semi-peripheral position.

According to Immanuel Wallerstein, one of the most well-known theorists who developed the world-systems approach, a core nation is dominant over the non-core nations from its economic and trade dominance. The abundance of cheap and unskilled labour in the peripheral nations makes many large multinational corporations (MNCs), from core countries, often outsource their production to the peripheral countries to cut costs, by employing cheap labour. Hence, the languages from the core countries could penetrate into the peripheries from the setting up of the foreign MNCs in the peripheries. A significant percentage of the population living in the core countries had also migrated to the core countries in search of jobs with higher wages.

The gradual expansion of the population of migrants makes the language used in their home countries be brought into the core countries, thus allowing for further integration and expansion of the world language system. The semi-peripheries also maintain economic and financial trade with the peripheries and core countries. That allows for the penetration of languages used in the semi-peripheries into the core and peripheral nations, with the flow of migrants moving out of the semi-peripheral nations to the core and periphery for trade purposes.

Thus, the global language system examines rivalries and accommodations using a global perspective and establishes that the linguistic dimension of the world system goes hand in hand with the political, economic, cultural and ecological aspects. Specifically, the present global constellation of languages is the product of prior conquest and domination and of ongoing relations of power and exchange.

Q-value

${\displaystyle Q_{i}}$ is the communicative value of a language i, its potential to connect a speaker with other speakers of a constellation or subconstellation, "S". It is defined as follows:

${\displaystyle Q_{i}=p_{i}\times c_{i}=\left({\frac {P_{i}}{N^{S}}}\right)\times \left({\frac {C_{i}}{M^{S}}}\right)}$

The prevalence ${\displaystyle p_{i}}$ of language i, means the number of competent speakers in i, ${\displaystyle P_{i}}$, divided by all the speakers, ${\displaystyle N^{S}}$ of constellation S. Centrality, ${\displaystyle c_{i}}$ is the number of multilingual speakers ${\displaystyle C_{i}}$ who speak language i divided by all the multilingual speakers in constellation S, ${\displaystyle M^{S}}$.

Thus, the Q-value or communication value is the product of the prevalence ${\displaystyle p_{i}}$ and the centrality ${\displaystyle c_{i}}$ of language i in constellation S.

Consequently, a peripheral language has a low Q-value and the Q-values increase along the sociology classification of languages, with the Q-value of the hypercentral language being the highest.

De Swaan has been calculating the Q-values of the official European Union(EU) languages since 1957 to explain the acquisition of languages by EU citizens in different phases.

In 1970, when there were only four language constellations, Q-value decreased in the order of French, German, Italian, Dutch. In 1975, the European Commission enlarged to include Britain, Denmark and Ireland. English had the highest Q-value followed by French and German. In the following years, the European Commission grew, with the addition of countries like Austria, Finland and Sweden. Q-value of English still remained the highest, but French and German swapped places.

In EU23, which refers to the 23 official languages spoken in the European Union, the Q-values for English, German and French were 0.194, 0.045 and 0.036 respectively.

Theoretical framework

De Swaan likens the global language system to contemporary political macrosociology and states that language constellations are a social phenomenon, which can be understood by using social science theories. In his theory, de Swaan uses the Political Sociology of Language and Political Economy of Language to explain the rivalry and accommodation between language groups.

Political sociology

This theoretical perspective centres on the interconnections among the state, nation and citizenship. Accordingly, bilingual elite groups try to take control of the opportunities for mediation between the monolingual group and the state. Subsequently, they use the official language to dominate the sectors of government and administration and the higher levels of employment. It assumes that both the established and outsider groups are able to communicate in a shared vernacular, but the latter groups lack the literacy skills that could allow them to learn the written form of the central or supercentral language, which would, in turn allow, them to move up the social ladder.

Political economy

This perspective centres on the inclinations that people have towards learning one language over the other. The presumption is that if given a chance, people will learn the language that gives them more communication advantage. In other words, a higher Q-Value. Certain languages such as English or Chinese have high Q-values since they are spoken in many countries across the globe and would thus be more economically useful than to less spoken languages, such as Romanian or Hungarian.

From an economic perspective, languages are ‘hypercollective’ goods since they exhibit properties of collective goods and produce external network effects. Thus, the more speakers a language has, the higher its communication value for each speaker. The hypercollective nature and Q-Value of languages thus help to explain the dilemma that a speaker of a peripheral language faces when deciding whether to learn the central or hypercentral language. The hypercollective nature and Q-value also help to explain the accelerating spread and abandonment of various languages. In that sense, when people feel that a language is gaining new speakers, they would assign a greater Q-value to this language and abandon their own native language in place of a more central language. The hypercollective nature and Q-value also explain, in an economic sense, the ethnic and cultural movements for language conservation.

Specifically, a minimal Q-value of a language is guaranteed when there is a critical mass of speakers committed to protecting it, thus preventing the language from being forsaken.

Characteristics

The global language system theorises that language groups are engaged in unequal competition on different levels globally. Using the notions of a periphery, semi-periphery and a core, which are concepts of the world system theory, de Swaan relates them to the four levels present in the hierarchy of the global language system: peripheral, central, supercentral and hypercentral.

De Swaan also argues that the greater the range of potential uses and users of a language, the higher the tendency of an individual to move up the hierarchy in the global language system and learn a more "central" language. Thus, de Swaan views the learning of second languages as proceeding up rather than down the hierarchy, in the sense that they learn a language that is on the next level up. For instance, speakers of Catalan, a peripheral language, have to learn Spanish, a central language to function in their own society, Spain. Meanwhile, speakers of Persian, a central language, have to learn Arabic, a supercentral language, to function in their region. On the other hand, speakers of a supercentral language have to learn the hypercentral language to function globally, as is evident from the huge number of non-native English speakers.

According to de Swaan, languages exist in "constellations" and the global language system comprises a sociological classification of languages based on their social role for their speakers. The world's languages and multilinguals are connected in a strongly ordered, hierarchical pattern. There are thousands of peripheral or minority languages in the world, each of which are connected to one of a hundred central languages. The connections and patterns between each language is what makes up the global language system. The four levels of language are the peripheral, central, supercentral and hypercentral languages.

This flowchart depicts the hierarchy of the languages in de Swaan's (2001) global language system theory.

Peripheral languages

At the lowest level, peripheral languages, or minority languages, form the majority of languages spoken in the world; 98% of the world's languages are peripheral languages and spoken by less than 10% of the world’s population. Unlike central languages, these are "languages of conversation and narration rather than reading and writing, of memory and remembrance rather than record". They are used by native speakers within a particular area and are in danger of becoming extinct with increasing globalisation, which sees more and more speakers of peripheral languages acquiring more central languages in order to communicate with others.

Central languages

The next level constitutes about 100 central languages, spoken by 95% of the world's population and generally used in education, media and administration. Typically, they are the 'national' and official languages of the ruling state. These are the languages of record, and much of what has been said and written in those languages is saved in newspaper reports, minutes and proceedings, stored in archives, included in history books, collections of the 'classics', of folk talks and folk ways, increasingly recorded on electronic media and thus conserved for posterity.

Many speakers of central languages are multilingual because they are either native speakers of a peripheral language and have acquired the central language, or they are native speakers of the central language and have learned a supercentral language.

Supercentral languages

At the second highest level, 13 supercentral languages are very widely spoken languages that serve as connectors between speakers of central languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Hindi, Japanese, Malay, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swahili and Turkish.

These languages often have colonial traces and "were once imposed by a colonial power and after independence continued to be used in politics, administration, law, big business, technology and higher education".

Hypercentral languages

At the highest level is the language that connects speakers of the supercentral languages. Today, English is the only example of a hypercentral language as the standard for science, literature, business, and law, as well as being the most widely spoken second language.

Applications

Pyramid of languages of the world

This pyramid illustrates the hierarchy of the world's languages as proposed by Graddol (1997) in his book, 'The future of English? A guide to forecasting the popularity of the English language in the 21st century', published by the British Council.

According to David Graddol (1997), in his book titled The Future of English, the languages of the world comprise a "hierarchical pyramid", as follows:

• The big languages: English, French.
• Regional languages (languages of the United Nations are marked with asterisk): Arabic*, Mandarin*, English*, French*, German, Russian*, Spanish*, Hindustani.
• National languages: around 80 languages serving over 180 nation states.
• Official languages within nation states (and other "safe" languages): around 600 languages worldwide (e.g. Marathi).
• Local vernacular languages: the remainder of the world's 6,000+ languages.

Translation systems

The global language system is also seen in the international translation process as explained by Johan Heilbron, a historical sociologist: "translations and the manifold activities these imply are embedded in and dependent on a world system of translation, including both the source and the target cultures".

The hierarchical relationship between global languages is reflected in the global system for translations. The more "central" a language, the greater is its capability to function as a bridge or vehicular language to facilitate communication between peripheral and semi-central languages.

Heilbron's version of the global system of language in translations has four levels: 

Level 1: Hypercentral position — English currently holds the largest market share of the global market for translations; 55–60% of all book translations are from English. It strongly dominates the hierarchical nature of book translation system.

Level 2: Central position — German and French each hold 10% of the global translation market.

Level 3: Semi-central position — There are 7 or 8 languages "neither very central on a global level nor very peripheral", making up 1 to 3% of the world market ^{Each of them or the set of them ?}(like Spanish, Italian and Russian).

Level 4: Peripheral position — Languages from which "less than 1% of the book translations worldwide are made", including Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Malay, Swahili, Turkish and Arabic. Despite having large populations of speakers, "their role in the translation economy is peripheral as compared to more central languages".

Acceptance

According to the Google Scholar website, de Swaan's book, Words of the world: The global language system, has been cited by 546 other papers, as of 16 October 2014.

However, there have also been several concerns regarding the global language system:

Importance of Q-value

Van Parijs (2004) claimed that 'frequency' or likelihood of contact is adequate as an indicator of language learning and language spread. However, de Swaan (2007) argued that it alone is not sufficient. Rather, the Q-value, which comprises both frequency (better known as prevalence) and 'centrality', helps to explain the spread of (super)central languages, especially former colonial languages in newly independent countries where in which only the elite minority spoke the language initially. Frequency alone would not be able to explain the spread of such languages, but Q-value, which includes centrality, would be able to.

In another paper, Cook and Li (2009) examined the ways to categorise language users into various groups. They suggested two theories: one by Siegel (2006) who used 'sociolinguistic settings', which is based on the notion of dominant language, and another one by de Swaan (2001) that used the concept of hierarchy in the global language system. According to them, de Swaan's hierarchy is more appropriate, as it does not imply dominance in power terms. Rather, de Swaan's applies the concepts of geography and function to group languages and hence language users according to the global language system. De Swaan (2001) views the acquisition of second languages (L2) as typically going up the hierarchy.

However, Cook and Li argues that this analysis is not adequate in accounting for the many groups of L2 users to whom the two areas of territory and function hardly apply. The two areas of territory and function can be associated respectively with the prevalence and centrality of the Q-value. This group of L2 users typically doez not acquire an L2 going up the hierarchy, such as users in an intercultural marriage or users who come from a particular cultural or ethnic group and wish to learn its language for identity purposes. Thus, Cook and Li argue that de Swaan's theory, though highly relevant, still has its drawbacks in that the concept behind Q-value is insufficient in accounting for some L2 users.

Choice of supercentral languages

There is disagreement as to which languages should be considered more central. The theory states that a language is central if it connects speakers of "a series of central languages". Robert Phillipson questioned why Japanese is included as one of the supercentral languages but Bengali, which has more speakers, is not on the list.

Inadequate evidence for a system

Michael Morris argued that while it is clear that there is language hierarchy from the "ongoing interstate competition and power politics", there is little evidence provided that shows that the "global language interaction is so intense and systematic that it constitutes a global language system, and that the entire system is held together by one global language, English". He claimed that de Swaan's case studies demonstrated that hierarchy in different regions of the world but did not show the existence of a system within a region or across regions. The global language system is supposed to be part of the international system but is "notoriously vague and lacking in operational importance" and therefore cannot be shown to exist. However, Morris believes that this lack of evidence could be from the lack of global language data and not negligence on de Swaan's part. Morris also believes that any theory on a global system, if later proved, would be much more complex than what is proposed by de Swaan. Questions on how the hypercentral language English holds together the system must also be answered by such a global language system.

Theory built on inadequate foundations

Robert Phillipson states that the theory is based on selective theoretical foundations. He claimed that there is a lack of consideration about the effects of globalization, which is especially important when the theory is about a global system: "De Swaan nods occasionally in the direction of linguistic and cultural capital, but does not link this to class or linguistically defined social stratification (linguicism) or linguistic inequality" and that "key concepts in the sociology of language, language maintenance and shift, and language spread are scarcely mentioned".

On the other hand, de Swaan's work in the field of sociolinguistics has been noted by other scholars to be focused on "issues of economic and political sociology" and "politic and economic patterns", which may explain why he makes only 'cautious references to socio-linguistic parameters".