Beyond English: Confronting Linguistic Imperialism
- Akshita Sehgal
- Jan 30
- 6 min read
In a post-colonial and increasingly globalized society, language is far more than a tool of communication — it is a symbol of privilege and hierarchy. No example illustrates this more starkly than the global dominance of English. The English language occupies a uniquely powerful stature in global life. As lingua franca, it is the primary language of diplomacy, elite education, scientific research —a linguistic passport that unlocks a plethora of global opportunities. However, it also operates as a gatekeeping mechanism that entrenches the divide between those at the centre of global influence and those pushed towards the periphery.
The concept of linguistic imperialism was first propounded by Phillipson in 1992 and can be understood as the imposition or elevation of one language over others through unequal political, economic, or cultural power structures. Historically, linguistic imposition was rooted in military warfare and colonial expansion, however, this phenomenon is now maintained by subtle soft power dominance: global media, market systems, digital platforms, and as Canagarajah argues, the global English-language teaching industry.
This piece examines the mechanisms that sustain linguistic imperialism, multilingualism, and English as a mode of global communication, and consequences of structural inequalities embedded in contemporary language hierarchies. It concludes by recommending policy frameworks to combat linguistic neo-colonisation and prevent erosion of indigenous identities in an era of accelerating homogenisation.
Forms of Linguistic Imperialism and Contemporary Manifestations
While early theorists such as Phillipson argue that linguistic imperialism is a product of colonial governance and structural hierarchy, the contemporary scholarship suggests that English dominance operates through more complex mechanisms. Zeng, Ponce, and Li in their paper argue that linguistic imperialism has transitioned to linguistic neo-imperialism — a mode of linguistic dominance that is enforced through soft power and internalised hegemony. In this model English persists not simply because of its colonial legacy but because it is actively maintained and normalized by local actors. As a result, linguistic neo-imperialism permeates every facet of social, political, and cultural life.
International communication and governance have heavily been dominated by English. The post-World War II world order influenced by the Anglo-American powers sought English as the mode of global communication and multilateral diplomacy. For example, ASEAN, an international and intergovernmental organisation, has stipulated in their charter as per Article 34 that the working language of ASEAN would be English in lieu of the indigenous language of the member states —demonstrating how English is positioned as the neutral or “efficient” choice in global governance.
In academia, English is the default language of publication. Market leading publishers such as Elsevier, Taylor & Francis, SAGE etc. that occupy over 50% of the market share have stipulations that journal articles, abstracts and titles must be in English. As journals predominantly only publish articles in English, neo-colonial dynamics are reinforced that perpetuate English as the language of academia. Stockemer and Wigginton found in a survey of more than 800 authors that non-English speaking researchers on average wrote 60% of their papers in English illustrating how deeply the expectation to publish in English has been internalised.
Education systems, in post-colonial systems, maintain English as the language of instruction. As Lai explains, many people regard English as a stepping stone to social status and higher education. Even in multilingual countries, English instruction is given priority and is considered a marker of “elite” education. Universities in the Global South increasingly adopt English instruction to attain “world-class” status.
Collectively, these mechanisms reinforce structural inequalities that draw a clear demarcation between English and non-English speakers. The dominance of English in governance, academia and education does not merely reflect globalization but actively sustains linguistic hierarchies that privilege those with access to English while marginalizing other linguistic communities.
Multilingualism and Limits of the Imperialism Thesis
Critics of the linguistic imperialism theory argue that the global spread of English does not necessarily entail cultural erosion or linguistic displacement.
The pluralisation perspective was advanced by Bisong and he contends multilingual speakers exercise agency in choosing how and when to use English. From this perspective, English is not a hegemonic force but a pragmatic tool that individuals employ to navigate globalised social and economic realities. Similarly, as Pennycook argues, English has become a medium through which marginalized communities' articulate dissent and challenge structural injustices. Therefore, English operates as a language for liberation and resistance.
While these arguments highlight important dimensions of linguistic agency, they do not negate the structural hierarchies embedded within global English. The dominance of the hierarchy continues to produce uneven access to education and economic opportunities.
Policy Recommendations
Linguistic neo-imperialism has considerable adverse implications for peripheral and post-colonial countries. Neo-colonialism is evident in weakened national identity, cultural erosion, and eventual language loss. To counter these structural threats, it is imperative to create strong policy frameworks that mitigate dominance of English and actively protect indigenous languages and identities.
Bottom Up Approach to Language Revitalisation
Local communities should be placed at the centre of language preservation efforts. This can be achieved by providing micro-grants for community run immersive programmes and initiatives. Furthermore, universities can partner with local communities to offer technical support. However, local communities may lack the financial or administrative capacity to sustain these programmes long-term.
While these problems may persist, as Fettas et Al. argues, when communities are involved in planning and implementing their language programmes, the sense of ownership significantly enhances engagement and long-term sustainability of these dialects. Community-driven initiatives and localised curriculum development provide culturally grounded solutions that respond directly to the needs and aspirations of the speakers.
Multilingual policies
Domestic policies and infrastructures must reflect a commitment to multilingualism to propagate local languages and cultures. The European Union’s laws and policies such as European Cultural Convention 1977, Treaty of Amsterdam 1997 and Bologna Declaration 1999 have constantly reiterated and maintained the importance of multilingualism.
Multilingualism must be institutionalised across state infrastructure. This can include legal systems, bureaucracy, media, and education. As per the recommendation of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, The UN General Assembly has proclaimed 2022-2032 the International Decade of Indigenous Languages. Following which, a Global Action Plan and Global Task Force has been implemented.
However, the implementation of such international frameworks can be challenging for low-income states and costs undertaken may not be economically feasible. Subsequently, too many official languages may slow bureaucratic procedures. Nonetheless, such frameworks counter the hegemony of English by institutionalizing support for a multilinguistic approach across dimensions of governance, culture, and education.
Therefore, while resource constraints and administrative burdens pose challenges, multilingual governance remains an essential objective that must be incorporated in policy frameworks.
Reformed Education Policy
Educational policies must reflect contemporary multilingual realities. Mother tongue instruction should form the basis of early education, with English as a complementary language — not substitutive.
However, there might be a shortage of trained multilingual teachers and parents may prefer early English education due to the demands of the global labour market. While these contentions are credible, UNESCO’s 2011 commissioned review Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse Language Backgrounds argues that multilingual education and mother-tongue based bilingual education is particularly effective in early childhood and primary school and supports better comprehension and retention. It also leads to lower drop-out rates especially in marginalised groups.
Context-specific English instruction combined with support for indigenous languages offers an equitable and sound model that balances global competitiveness with cultural preservation.
Bibliography
ASEAN. The ASEAN Charter. 2007.
Ball, J. Enhancing Learning of Children from Diverse Language Backgrounds: Mother Tongue-Based Bilingual or Multilingual Education in the Early Years. UNESCO Digital Library, 2010–2011.
Basu, B. L. “The Global Spread of English, ‘Linguistic Imperialism’, and the ‘Politics’ of English Language Teaching: A Reassessment of the Role of English in the World Today.” Spectrum, vols. 8–9, 2013.
Bisong, J. “Language Choice and Cultural Imperialism: A Nigerian Perspective.” ELT Journal, vol. 49, no. 2, 1995, pp. 122–32.
Canagarajah, A. S. Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford University Press, 1999.
Crystal, D. Language Death. Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Crystal, D. English as a Global Language. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Elsevier. “Content Policy and Selection.” Scopus, https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content/content-policy-and-selection. Accessed 23 Nov. 2025.
Fettes, N., U.-G. Meißner, and S. Steininger. “Pion-Nucleon Scattering in Chiral Perturbation Theory (I): Isospin-Symmetric Case.” Nuclear Physics A, vol. 640, 1998, pp. 199–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(98)00452-7.
Hagve, M. “The Money Behind Academic Publishing.” Tidsskriftet, 2020, https://tidsskriftet.no/en/2020/08/kronikk/money-behind-academic-publishing#:~:text=Huge%20profits-,Huge%20profits,the%20film%20industry%20(4). Accessed 24 Nov. 2025.
International Decade of Indigenous Languages 2022–2032. United Nations, https://www.un.org.
Knowles, G. “English Language Imperialism: Year in Review 1997.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 1998, p. 8.
Lai, Mee Ling. “English Linguistic Neo-Imperialism – A Case of Hong Kong.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, vol. 42, 2019, pp. 398–412.
Pennycook, Alastair. The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. Pearson Education, 1994.
Phillipson, Robert. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford University Press, 1992.
Stockemer, Daniel, and Michael J. Wigginton. “Publishing in English or Another Language: An Inclusive Study of Scholars’ Language Publication Preferences in the Natural, Social and Interdisciplinary Sciences.” Scientometrics, vol. 118, 2019, pp. 645–52.
Zeng, Jing, Andrea R. Ponce, and Yiming Li. “English Linguistic Neo-Imperialism in the Era of Globalization: A Conceptual Viewpoint.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 14, 2023, article 1149471
