標題は，昨日の記事「#1606. 英語言語帝国主義，言語差別，英語覇権」 ([2013-09-19-1])，及びかつての記事としては「#1073. 英語が他言語を侵略してきたパターン」 ([2012-04-04-1]) や「#1072. 英語は言語として特にすぐれているわけではない」 ([2012-04-03-1]) で触れてきた問題である．Phillipson は，著書の随所で，一般に ELT 関係者が英語教育のもつ政治的な含みに対してあまりにナイーブであることを主張している．そして，この無知こそが英語言語帝国主義の拡張を促しているのだとも批判している．この趣旨の引用を5点ほど示そう．
. . . the majority of those working in the ELT field tend to confine themselves, by choice and training, to linguistic, literary, or pedagogical matters. ELT is however an international activity with political, economic, military, and cultural implications and ramifications. (8)
I would argue that ELT professionalism excludes broader societal issues, the prerequisites and consequences of ELT activity, from its professional purview. (48)
The belief that ELT is non-political serves to disconnect culture from structure. It assumes that educational concerns can be divorced from social, political, and economic realities. It exonerates the experts who hold the belief from concerning themselves with these dimensions. It encourages a technical approach to ELT, divorced even from wider educational issues. It permits the English language to be exported as a standard product without the requirements of the local market being considered except in a superficial way. (67)
There is explicit recognition of the commercial relevance of English, though their view of the spread of English is remarkably ahistorical. 'The interest of the British and American peoples in spreading their language abroad has never been narrowly political or chauvinistic. A great deal of the expansion that has already occurred has been almost accidental; but many natural forces and inducements have been at work' ([The Drogheda Report: 4). One hopes that this is self-deception rather than more sinister imperialist rhetoric. (148)
These declarations [from Center for Applied Linguistics 1959] are clear examples of the myth of non-political ELT. They show little awareness of the contribution of professionalism to the constitution and affirmation of hegemonic ideas. The experts are probably intuitively aware that central professional practices, procedures, and norms represent a paradigm that is being exported, directly or indirectly, to periphery-English countries, yet this is not regarded as educational or cultural imperialism, let alone political in any sense. Their narrow interpretation of this implicitly identifies the 'political' as the discourse of professional politicians or diplomats. They are also inconsistent, since they can immediately identify the political motivations of communist textbooks, yet want their own to project Western values. Their protestations ring somewhat hollow, when their work is explicitly intended to benefit the State they represent. (165)
英語言語帝国主義批判の文献では，「精神の奴隷化」とか "servitude of the mind" などの強い表現がしばしば現われるが，これらの表現は上のような態度をも指しているのだろう．
この Phillipson の議論に，私も基本的に同意する．英語教育に携わっているばかりでなく英語史教育・研究に携わっている者としても，この議論には親近感を覚える．というのは，（とりわけ社会言語学的な側面に注目して）英語の発達してきた歴史的背景に光を当てるのが，英語史のなすべき基本的な仕事だからだ．特に近代以降の英語の著しい成長が，もっぱら種々の言語外的な要因，すなわち政治的なものをも含めた社会的な要因によるものであることは，英語史を批判的に学ぶ者にとっては明らかなのだが，それが一般に広く知られているわけではない．もし上記のナイーブさがあるのだとしたら，それを減じてゆくためには，英語史教育が有効だと考える．「#24. なぜ英語史を学ぶか」 ([2009-05-22-1]) の記事で，英語史を学べば「歴史に基づいた英語観を形成することができる（特に英語を教える立場にある者には必要）」と記したとおりである．
・ Phillipson, Robert. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: OUP, 1992.
Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow