This essay analyses English linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992, 46) in the Philippines and identifies the features of linguistic neo-imperialism in the current era. The study rethinks and investigates how English linguistic imperialism plays a dual role in promoting and destroying the Filipino linguistic ecology. The present situation of English imperialism analyzed in this essay shows that the new stage of English linguistic imperialism embodies language hegemony mainly driven by political influence and business interests. At present, English linguistic neo-imperialism is not confined within post-colonial territories but maintains and expands both the language’s positive and negative influences as the world’s lingua franca. The authors also discuss the Filipino ownership of English and whether linguistic imperialism is entirely applicable to the Philippine context. Evidence shows that the continuing use of English, to a great extent, is Filipinos’ choice, not only for the benefit of the United States

This study utilizes Cobarrubias’ (1983. Ethical issues in status planning. In: Progress in language planning: international perspectives. pp. 41–85) taxonomy of language ideologies as the framework to uncover the ideologies underlying language policy and planning (LPP) in the Philippines. We discuss the different language ideologies, including linguistic assimilation, vernacularization, linguistic pluralism, and internationalization, through a historical analysis of the mandated LPP in the Philippines and how they have influenced the country’s LPP. Our findings reveal that legislation and administrative measures have played a crucial role in the process of linguistic assimilation, which has historically been the dominant ideology underlying LPP in the Philippines. Furthermore, we highlight that various language ideologies can coexist and be present simultaneously within a language policy or society. We also posit that Cobarrubias’ (1983. Ethical issues in status planning. In: Progress in language planning: international perspectives. pp. 41–85) framework has the potential to aid in the analysis and enhancement of LPP in other countries facing similar linguistic scenarios. Additionally, multilingual and multicultural countries must continually adapt their LPP to emphasize inclusive language policies, language maintenance initiatives, and national identity construction that values and respects linguistic diversity, empowers local communities, and strives for social inclusivity and cohesion within the context of neocolonialism and globalization.

As Phillipson warned, “[l]inguistic imperialism [is] alive and kicking” and has become even more subtle in an era when English has become the global lingua franca. With this, this conceptual paper aims to propose features of linguistic neo-imperialism by describing how English has continuously spread and retained its power in various domains particularly in periphery countries, whether ex-colonies or non-colonies. Broadly, we highlight these features from the aspects of communication, business, academia, and education. The features of English linguistic neo-imperialism are interrelated and interactive in these fields, reinforcing the current dominant position of English. We then proceed with drawing implications for the local languages, particularly in their preservation and use alongside English and other dominant lingua francas.

No abstract

No abstract