Gibson Ferguson Language Planning and Education Edinburgh ...

The global spread of English 139
Addressing inequalities in communication
Proposals to ameliorate, if not redress, these inequalities have been advanced by
various parties, some more radical than others. Ammon (2000: 114), for example, in
eminently reasonable fashion, calls for greater tolerance on the part of Anglo-
American journal editors and reviewers towards deviations from native standards,
and argues for the non-native writer’s right to ‘linguistic peculiarities’. He recognises,
however, that without concerted institutional and political backing such pleas stand
on weak ground, a point de Swaan (2001b: 79) implicitly concurs with when he says
that ‘more than good intentions are required’. Like Ammon, de Swaan (2001b)
believes that the best way of mitigating inequality and Anglo-Saxon bias may be
to pursue the long term ‘de-anglicisation’ of English, a process he hopes may be
accomplished through the gradual emergence of a ‘Euro-English’ variety that in due
course undergoes codification and ultimately receives official European Union (EU)
endorsement (see Chapter 6). For the short term, he proposes limited practical
measures such as the appointment in greater numbers of fluent non-native speakers
of English to the editorial boards of international journals, and more careful
monitoring of the proportions of submissions from non-native writers accepted for
publication.
There are, of course, more radical solutions proposed, one of which involves the
abandonment of English as the global lingua franca of science, and as the main de
facto working language of EU institutions, and its replacement by some neutral,
more equitable communication code such as Esperanto (Phillipson 2003: 121).
Another, entertained as a possibility for EU-internal communication, involves the
contrivance of situations of equal disadvantage – by insisting, for example, that in
official discussions delegates speak a language other than their mother tongue.
Neither of these latter suggestions is very persuasive, however; not so much for
reasons of principle but because of the practical and political obstacles to their
implementation. The first – to abandon English – is unworkable because, as
de Swaan (2001b: 79) points out, there is no central institution sufficiently in control
of global English to enforce such a decision. Besides, the advantages of English as the
international language of science are widely appreciated, and those many scholars
worldwide who have invested time in learning English are understandably likely to
be resistant to its replacement. The second – equal disadvantage – also seems unlikely
to gain acceptance precisely because of the contrivance involved, but also because
political support from France and the UK, two of the more powerful EU member
states, seems highly improbable.
In truth, resolving inequalities in communication between non-native and native
speakers of English in academic and scientific domains is difficult, and it is hardly
surprising, therefore, that convincing solutions – ones that do not have other undesirable
side effects – remain elusive. Changes in the way English is taught as a
lingua franca (see Chapter 6) may make a very minor contribution to more equitable
communication. That apart, one can only suggest that native speakers of English,
particularly professional educators, would be well advised to keep in mind the fact
that their privileged position as native speakers of a global language is accidental and