125
Kwansei Gakuin University
Humanities Review
Vol.20, 2015
Nishinomiya, Japan

English as a Lingua Franca: Globalization, Ownership,
and the Diversification of English

Matthew MICHAUD*
Bradley D. F. COLPITTS**

I. Introduction
In an increasingly globalized world in which people from a variety of different
geographical and linguistic backgrounds must communicate with one another
daily, the need for a global lingua franca is obvious. The economic and cultural
dominance of America over the last century, accompanied by the lingering
influences of the colonial British Empire, have leveraged the position of English as
the common language of international communication. However, as English
continues to grow in importance among non-native speakers of the language, a
number of questions arise: what are the current challenges to English’s position as
a global lingua franca? Who does it serve? Can English exist as a global lingua
franca without marginalizing the local languages of the countries into which it is
introduced? This paper looks to examine the salient points and contradictory
voices emerging in relation to English’s position as the global language.
II. English as a Lingua Franca
To be considered a true ‘global language’, Crystal (1998, 2006) argues that a
language must possess three characteristics: that the majority of people in some
countries use it as their native-language, that it has been widely adopted as an
official language, and that that it is given priority in language teaching around the
world. It is fair to say that at present, English meets all of these criteria.
Of particular relevance to the growth of English as a lingua franca is that
non-native speakers using English as a means of communication “are greater in
number than the traditionally understood [native speakers] who use English as
their sole or primary language of communication” (Canagarajah, 2007, p. 925).

126

Matthew MICHAUD and Bradley D. F. COLPITTS

English is being utilized across a variety of industries as the common language in
international business and is increasingly being adopted in transnational bodies
such as the UN. As non-native speakers (NNSs) increasingly account for a larger
percentage of the overall English-speaking population, a very practical and
obvious economic advantage of adopting English as a lingua franca emerges.
Etzioni (2008) argues that the adoption of the English language as a lingua franca
would “greatly reduce the costs of conducting transactions and communications
across national borders” (p. 155). Etzioni also notes that the costs associated with
the policy of multilingualism endorsed by the EU currently account for a striking
13% of the EU’s administrative budget in translation and interpretation services.
Some, such as Gil (2011), argue that given the increasing importance of China
as a global economic and cultural center of power, Standard Chinese might replace
English as the global lingua franca. Before achieving this goal; however, there are
a number of significant obstacles for the primary Chinese language to overcome.
Gil argues that despite the increasing popularity of Chinese language classes
around the world, the language has yet to meet the three characteristics outlined
by Crystal (1998, 2006) earlier. Crystal also notes that while English is an official
or co-official language in 70 countries, as well as a priority language in more than
100, Standard Chinese is only the official language amongst the populations of
China, Taiwan and Singapore. This brings serious doubt as to whether the will or
desire to adopt Standard Chinese as a priority language in other countries exists.
Contributing to this skepticism is the fact that English is already a priority
language in China itself. In discussing the emerging prominence of English in
China, Nunan (2003) reflects on an interview with a Chinese informant working in
the publishing industry, and was told that “there were 600,000 new enrolments in
private-conversation schools every 4 to 6 months” (p. 595). With these points
considered, it is hard to imagine Standard Chinese supplanting English as the
common global language.
Another important question is whether the English spoken by native
speakers should be the ideal target for which English as a Lingua Franca (ELF)
speakers aim to attain, or if in fact, an expert ELF user is a more pragmatic ideal.
Elder and Davies (2006) argue that “(s)trict adherence to native speaker norms of
correctness are arguably unreasonable and irrelevant to the target language
construct, given that successful communication does not depend on them” (p. 288).
They then go on to propose a series of potential replacements for standardized
tests developed in English-speaking countries, which would afford greater
flexibility to regional variations of English and place greater emphasis on
performance, rather than grammatical accuracy. House (2003), in turn, argues
that the ‘yardstick’ for comparison should be an “expert in ELF use, a stable

English as a Lingua Franca: Globalization, Ownership, and the Diversification of English

127

multi-lingual speaker under comparable socio-cultural and historical conditions of
language use, and with comparable goals for interaction” (p. 573). Accepting
regional variations of English, rather than perceiving them as being deficient,
would afford the ELF a greater degree of ownership over the language. Designing
tests that consider linguistic or cultural variations that may extend from the users’
first language (L1) would help reduce the hegemony of English as a lingua franca
and uproot some of its colonial underpinnings.
III. Who Does the Lingua Franca Serve?
Phillipson (2001) argues that the current move to assert English as the global
lingua franca is being done at the behest of transnational corporations intent on
expanding their business and “producing consumers rather than critical citizens”
(p. 190). He also argues that English serves the interests of select stakeholders
and “ignores the fact that a majority of the world’s citizens do not speak English”
(Phillipson, 2001, p. 188). Certainly, the very structure of many education systems
- such as in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan - seem to be designed in order to have
students perform well on standardized tests, for example, TOEIC and TOEFL. The
tests then, in turn, determine students’ value as English speakers when they begin
job-hunting; however, the tests do little to measure students’ communicative
ability and thus serve the interests of corporations rather than students (Suzuki &
Daza, 2004). Speaking on this trend, Shumar (1997) argues that university
education is increasingly seen as a commodity rather than as a public good serving
the needs of society.
English language education has become a great source of revenue for
English-speaking countries, and a trend has seen even non-English speaking
countries trying to appropriate English for financial gain. It speaks volumes to
note that in Asia “‘international’ institutions nowadays largely means having
English as the medium of instruction” (Phan, 2013, p. 162). One could argue that
there is something positive to take from this, as EFL users are taking ownership of
English, and in doing so, they can reap the rewards that have previously only
benefitted the countries of native speakers. However, Phan (2013) also notes that
“(t)he growing commercialization of higher education has been coupled with the
commodification of English which is also associated with the continuing belief that
‘the West is better’” (p. 164). This commodification and idealization of English also
has substantive consequences on education, sometimes to the detriment of the
people education is meant to benefit. This point is consistent with Phillipson’s
(2001) argument that English textbooks serve to “project western life-styles as
‘objects of admiration and envy’” (p.195).

128

Matthew MICHAUD and Bradley D. F. COLPITTS

One example of the harmful effects of the commodification of education is
addressed in Choi’s (2010) study of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong
Kong’s only university where Standard Chinese is the primary medium of
instruction. Prior to 2005, the CUHK administration had quietly proposed that
university faculties move toward using English as the medium of instruction, a
move which Choi argues contradicts the university’s founding principle of teaching
in Standard Chinese. The issue was brought to the forefront by the university’s
student union, and protests by the student group served as a catalyst for
condemnation from several academics and public figures, including several
prominent academics from outside the territory (Choi, 2010). The resistance to
this change forced the administration to compromise and offer a tiered language
system that allowed greater inclusion of Standard Chinese, however Choi still
argues that the “hierarchizing of the two languages clearly endorsed and
reinforced the English hegemony” (p. 248). This case demonstrates that despite
being able to appropriate English to their own benefit, the commodification of
English can still pose a threat to education outside the English-speaking world
and can encourage university administrations to operate like businesses, rather
than as centers of academia that serve the community.
Choi (2010) also notes the growing trend of having a “hierarchical division
between faculty closer to the market and those further from it, as well as the
increased number of part-timers who take up the instruction work ‘left behind’” (p.
235). This is of particular interest given the emerging trends in post-secondary
language education in Japan. Currently, a standard requirement for becoming
employed at a higher education institution in Japan is having a completed
master’s degree; however, new administrative measures have seen universities
streamline their staff, directly hiring or outsourcing English classes to lower-cost
English teachers or third-party companies. Additionally, some institutions are
reducing the number of tenured faculty members (Mulvey, 2010). While this may
be beneficial for the finances of institutions in the short-term, it is making the job
market more competitive for those who are more experienced and qualified. This
can result in teachers with smaller class sizes, but fewer attainable faculty
positions that involve decision-making power and research budgets. Unfortunately,
this trend might continue to the detriment of students.
IV. The Threat of the Lingua Franca to Local Languages
A common area of concern, in regards to the adoption of a global lingua franca,
is that it may reduce the use and importance of local languages and push them
towards extinction. Phillipson (2001) states that the power of American pop

English as a Lingua Franca: Globalization, Ownership, and the Diversification of English

129

culture, combined with U.S. and British corporate interests “embody and entail
hegemonizing processes that tend to render the use of English ‘natural’ and
‘normal’, and to marginalize other language” (p. 191). The question one must ask
then is this: does the adoption of a lingua franca pose a risk to smaller, local
languages?
House (2003) distinguishes two kinds of language: languages for
communication and languages for identification. A speaker’s L1 is a binding force
between them and their community and culture, and contributes to these
communities’ shared sense of identity. Contrary to Phillipson’s (2001) argument
that the English global lingua franca endangers local languages, House asserts
that “the very spread of ELF may stimulate members of minority languages to
insist on their own local language for emotional binding to their own culture” (p.
561). House envisions ELF serving as an inter-ethnic language that allows
different groups to maintain their mother tongue, while avoiding being segregated
into their own particular ethnic community. A complimentary idea to House’s
argument proposed by Etzioni (2008) sees a two-tiered system wherein
populations engage with their mother language in all things related to identity
(literature, the arts, history, culture), while learning a common second language.
Under such a system “one would seek not to replace particularistic languages that
are constitutive of various communities, but rather to add a universal language to
them” (Etzioni, p. 118).
Mufwene (2010) argues that in Africa, the threat to smaller, local languages is
“typically felt or feared from major indigenous languages…rather than from
European languages typically associated with colonization and globalization” (p.
917). Indeed, in countries throughout Africa or in India, where there are a variety
of different languages spoken, English may actually serve to protect indigenous
languages from being eradicated by more commonly spoken local languages.
House (2003) goes so far as to state that arguments such as the one made by
Phillipson “may be seen as patronizing since they imply that ELF users do not
know what is in their interest” (p. 560).
V. Conclusion
While the criticism of the hegemonic and colonialist influences of English as a
global lingua franca may carry some weight, the global community can benefit
from using English as a shared language. For countless reasons, English has come
to be the most widely spoken language in the world and it is the only language
that constitutes a global lingua franca, according to the criteria offered by Crystal
(1998, 2006). Etzioni (2008) draws comparisons to the American railroad system.

130

Matthew MICHAUD and Bradley D. F. COLPITTS

Though it was built at a great cost to human life and initially had a negative
impact on the communities through which it was built, it is now a cornerstone of
American industry and economy, providing a large source of jobs to Americans.
Similarly, although the spread of English may have resulted from a colonial past,
it now stands as a means of connecting people across borders and cultures, and in
doing so, allows us greater opportunity to interact with those from outside our
community.
Furthermore, having a common language may actually be of benefit in
maintaining local culture and heritage, so long as the lingua franca is instituted in
such a way that it does not replace local languages or relegate them to a lesser role.
This can be accomplished through a system such as the one Etzioni proposes, in
which both the local language and the lingua franca are taught and used within a
two-tiered system that recognizes the local language as a part of cultural identity.
Already, language education systems, such as the one in the Philippines, have
demonstrated that the lingua franca can be taught while respecting and affording
time to indigenous languages.

English as a Lingua Franca: Globalization, Ownership, and the Diversification of English

131

VI. References
Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and
language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 923-939.
Choi, P. K. (2010). ‘Weep for Chinese university”: a case study of English hegemony
and academic capitalism in higher education in Hong Kong. Journal of
Education Policy, 25(2), 233-252.
Crystal, D. (1998). English as a global language (Canto Edition). Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2006). English worldwide. In R. Hogg & D. Denison (Eds.), A History
of the English Language (420-439). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University
Press.
Elder, C. & Davies, A. (2006). Assessing English as a lingua franca. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 26, 282-301.
Etzioni, A. (2008). A global, community building language? International Studies
Perspectives, 9, 113-127.
Gil, J. (2011). A comparison of the global status of English and Chinese: towards a
new global language? English Today, 27(1), 52-59.
House, J. (2003). English as a lingua franca: a threat to multilingualism? Journal
of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 556-578.
Mufwene, S. (2010). The role of mother-tongue schooling in eradicating poverty: a
response to language and poverty. Language, 86(4), 910-932.
Mulvey, B. (2010). University accreditation in Japan: Problems and possibilities
for reforming EFL education. The Language Teacher, 34(1), 15-24.
Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational
policies and practices in the Asia-pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4),
589-613.
Phan, H. L. (2013). Issues surrounding English, the internationalisation of higher
education and national cultural identity in Asia: a focus on Japan. Critical
Studies in Education, 54(2), 160-175.
Phillipson, R. (2001). English for globalisation or for the world’s people?
International Review of Education, 47, 185-200.
Shumar, W. (1997). College for sale: A critique of the commodification of higher
education. London, U.K.: Falmer Press.
Suzuki, M. & Daza, C. (2004). A review of the reading section of the TOEIC.
TESL Canada Journal, 22(1), 16-24.

132