English as an International Language in Non-Native Settings in an Era of Globalization

Masamichi Sasaki, Tatsuzo Suzuki and Masato Yoneda

Abstract
Language is an unquestionable prerequisite for human communication. As such the study of language is intrinsic to sociology. This paper explores briey the importance of language study to sociology. The apparent dominance of English as the international language is discussed in some detail. The papers principal focus is to examine cross-national attitudes about English as the international language of non-English language speaking peoples and of peoples who speak English only as a foreign language. Extensive empirical ndings about these attitudes are examined in an eort to predict the future direction of the spread of English as international language. Though many of the ndings suggest extraordinary levels of ambivalence about English as international language, the results suggest many opportunities for further study. Key words: English language, linguistic attitudes, cross-national analysis, empirical study

Introduction Language is an unquestionable prerequisite for human communication. Language is an indispensable and universal component of the cultural system of all societies (Barber 1982:3). As such language is an intrinsic element of sociology (cf. Hertzler 1965; Mesthrie et al. 2000), indeed an excellent exemplar of Durkheims social representations (Durkheim 1938).

Comparative Sociology, Volume 5, issue 4 2006 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden

also available online see www.brill.nl

382 Masamichi Sasaki, Tatsuzo Suzuki and Masato Yoneda

This paper will explore briey the importance of language study to sociology. In the course of this discussion, we will also explore the claims of some who believe the dominance of English as an international language is only transitory. We will then turn to this papers principal focus, which is to examine English as an international language (or perhaps the international language). We will focus especially on the attitudes about English as an international language of non-English language speaking peoples and of peoples who speak English only as a second (or even third, and so on) language. Extensive empirical ndings will be examined in an eort to predict the future direction of the spread of English as international language. There is extensive literature on language and this literature has myriad foci, ranging from social, to political, to economic; even to military, and beyond. And it is easy to see that a major consideration in much of the discussion of language concerns language dominance. What makes one language become dominant over others? What drives language dominance? Certainly political and economic circumstances play a major role as one language emerges over others throughout history (see, e.g., Bailey 1985; Barber 1982; Crystal 1997; Firth 1970; Hertzler 1965; Kachru 1986). At the same time, this paper is considering the question of international language dominance in the context of globalization, a phenomenon which has changed things very distinctly from the time of the Roman Empire for instance, or even the era of British colonialism. In terms of direct communication, for example, the telephone and the internet (email in particular) have made daily communication throughout the world a simple, straightforward, even incidental means of human communication. Such communications require language, and most often they require a common language, for convenience if for no other reason. English as International Language English is undeniably the dominant international language, at least at present. Indeed, Kachru (1986) pointed out that there are more nonnative than native users of English in the world. According to Power (2005), non-native English speakers now outnumber native ones 3 to 1 (also see Strevens 1982; Smith 1983; and Quirk and Widdowson 1985). We will discuss later the potential for English to remain dominant. How did English get where it is today? Brumt (1982:1; also cf. Lieberson 1982; Noss 1983; Bryson 1990; Pennycook 1994; and Crystal 2004) summarizes well the source of Englishs present dominance in the following:
English is an international language in that it is the most widespread medium of international communication, both because of the number and geographical

English as an International Language 383

spread of its speakers, and because of the large number of non-native speakers who use it for part at least of their international contact. The predominance of English is mainly the result of two periods of world domination by English speaking nations: British imperialism in the nineteenth century, and the economic inuence of the United States in the twentieth century. The combination of political inuence and technological superiority acquired through these two successive movements has given English an advantage over other major imperial languages such as French or Spanish, while the relative geographical restrictions of Russian, Chinese in its many forms or Arabic have made these languages less inuential internationally.

There is a dierence between English as international language and previous languages that had dominant characteristics (such as Latin (see Wright 2004)), and of course that dierence arises because we are now dealing with the context of globalization. The extraordinarily widespread use of daily international communication in this context means that the dominant language at present is used on a much more universal and widespread scale than ever before.
The worldness of English, in both its global and local senses, implies relationships to the larger world and to the local context dierent from those of other languages. Given the dominant position of English in the world and its connections both to inequitable economic systems and to the dominance of certain forms of culture and knowledge, there are inevitable questions to be asked here concerning language and inequality. (Pennycook 1994:3435).

In this paper, our questions about language and inequality will be derived from the empirical work to be discussed shortly. This work concerns peoples attitudes toward English as international language and its dominance. These directly target the issues of the apparently inherent inequalities suggested by Pennycook. This dominance, though, was not inevitable. Historical circumstances were such that English coincidentally arose as international language, as dominant (cf. Melchers and Shaw 2003). Smith (1983:2) considers English an international auxiliary language. This begins to suggest a set of scholars who view English dominance in a dierent light. Another hint of this suggestion is given by Pennycook (1994:9), who states that English is seen as neutral because it is assumed that once English has in some sense become detached from its original cultural contexts (particularly England and America), it is now a neutral and transparent medium of communication. Bickley (1982:87) goes so far as to say that English does not belong to any one group of people. The use of English is always culture-bound, but the English language is not bound to any specic culture or political system.

384 Masamichi Sasaki, Tatsuzo Suzuki and Masato Yoneda

So at least some scholars consider that the social and cultural accoutrements of English have lost much of their association with the dominant, international language. As Kachru (1986:vii) puts it, Whether these . . . are real or imagined is not important; what is vital is the public attitude toward English, the love-hate relationship with the language [emphasis added]. Other scholars have focused on English dominance as linguistic capital. Linguistic capital is not unlike social capital, cultural capital, or economic capital (cf. Bourdieu 1976, 1977; Bourdieu and Passeron 1990). As such, English continues to provide unprecedented power for mobility and advancement to those native and non-native users who possess it as a linguistic tool (Kachru 1986:14). Nonetheless, as the world globalizes, so too does communication, hence a single language becomes nearly imperative. That this language had imperialist origins becomes less and less an issue in its universal deployment. Not everyone agrees with this sentiment, however (cf. Quirk 1987). Deneire (1993:172), for example, states that Resistance to Western domination in general and to American imperialism in particular has led to a revival of ethnonationalisms and to a rejection of English in favor of national languages. Thus English as international language becomes embroiled in the debate over Westernization, a subject principally beyond our present scope. Some scholars, including Fishman (1998:27), argue that English dominance will eventually wane in inuence (also cf. Al-Dabbagh 2005). In a long-term historical perspective, this is undoubtedly true, based upon past history. Many of these scholars focus on the notion of regionalization and see English dominance waning in the face of a potential rise of regional emphases. However, at present, no substitute languages appear on the horizon. Ironically, it could be globalizations technology sector that ultimately contributes to the wane of English dominance. Machine or automatic language translation technology has had an amazingly rocky history. Many thought the world would have access to universal translators in the 1970s or 1980s. They have yet to come to fruition; however, as with many technologies, it is only a matter of time. If universal and accurate automatic translation were available, then reliance on a single dominant language would certainly wane; perhaps along with it English dominance. Attitudes toward English as International Language What do non-English speaking or non-native English speaking people feel about English as the international means of communication, the

English as an International Language 385

dominant language? Do these people want to learn English? Do these people feel envious, resentful, or angry (Crystal 1997:2). Crystal (1997:2) goes on to state:
These feelings are natural, and would arise whichever language emerged as a global language. They are feelings which give rise to fears . . . and fears lead to conict. . . . Political dierences over language economics, education, laws and rights are a daily encounter for millions. Language is always in the news, and the nearer a language moves to becoming a global language, the more newsworthy it is.

Clearly the sources of feelings about language are extremely broad in scope, including, for instance, economics, politics, the law, policy making, and so on. Eectively this broad-based derivation is treated by the science of sociolinguistics (see, e.g., Kachru 1986, 1991; Baker 1992; Berns 1992; Ammon 1994; Pulcini 1997). Kachru (1991) called attitudes (toward language) unplanned or invisible forces which can, in eect, become invisible policies. From a somewhat dierent perspective, Cooper and Fishman (1977:8) have pointed out that Language attitude is sometimes studied in its own right and sometimes in connection with its relationship to language behavior. These types of study of language attitudes are at least characteristically if not fundamentally dierent from the empirical studies being reported here. As Cooper and Fishman (1977:8) also point out, Most research on the relationship between language attitude and second-language achievement has concentrated on the motivational aspects of language attitude or on the attitudes toward native speakers of the target language. Language prociency is often cited and studied in this regard; however, the present work does not speak to issues of motivation, achievement, prociency or competency. Indeed, very little empirical work has ever before focused on the issue of Englishness, on the rise of English to the status of international language, as the principal conduit for international communications. What these and many other implied speculations have heretofore lacked is empirical evidence in general and evidence about attitudes toward English as international language in particular. (For further information on attitudes toward English among dierent nations, see, e.g., Berns 1988; Pride and Liu 1988; Pennington and Yue 1994; Shim 1994; Iwasaki 1994; Yong and Campbell 1995; van Essen 1997; Pulcini 1997; and Spolsky and Shhamy 1999.)

386 Masamichi Sasaki, Tatsuzo Suzuki and Masato Yoneda

Empirical Study and Analysis Between 1996 and 1998, Tokyos National Language Research Institute conducted nationwide cross-national personal interview surveys among 28 nations aimed at, among other things, determining the nations degrees of tolerance for English, both intra- and internationally. Sampling methods for most of these nations were probability sampling and quota sampling techniques (for details on the samplings for each surveyed nation, see Suzuki, Yanagihara and Yoneda 2003). The original questionnaire (see National Language Research Institute 1999) included 58 questions covering a number of themes and topics which included ones language environment, ones mother tongue, language in general, and ones attitudes toward foreign languages, toward English, and toward Japanese. For purposes of the results we present here, 25 nations (except the Unites States, Australia, and the United Kingdom, where the mother tongue is English, the so-called inner circle; see Kachru 1985), were included in the analysis (see Figure 1). India, the Philippines, Nigeria, and Singapore are considered the so-called outer circle (see Kachru l985). This so-called outer circle refers to a group of nations with comparatively low level prevalence of English usage. Brazil, Argentina, Mongolia, Taiwan, China, Korea, Japan, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Israel, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Holland, Hungary, and Russia are considered to be in the so-called expanding circle (see Kachru 1985), where the prevalence of English usage is higher and increasing. Note that these nations do not have a history of colonization by members of the inner circle (Crystal 1997:54). Crosstabulations and correspondence analyses were conducted. The seven questions involved in this particular study are listed in Table 1. Table 1 shows that the analyses described here involve Questions 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 18, and 19. These numbers will be used throughout the following discussion to denote the questions as their results are discussed. The percentage distributions for each of the 7 questions for each of the 25 nations are shown in Tables 2 through 8. Table 2 shows the crosstabulation for Question 7 by nation. The bullets on the left indicate nations whose respondents said No to the question about preference for their mother tongue when talking with foreigners in their own nation much more often than Yes. In other words, in Singapore, the Philippines, Nigeria and Egypt, respondents were much less likely to prefer using their mother tongue to communicate with foreigners while in their own nations. Respondents in nearly all other nations answered Yes 60 or more percent of the time (with the exception of India at 53 percent). Indeed, many of the other respondents answered Yes 80 to 90 percent of the time. These ndings are consistent with

English as an International Language 387

Figure 1 Kachrus (1985) Concentric Circles of English

the fact that Singapore, the Philippines and Nigeria are outer circle nations. Egypt is an exception, as is India to some extent. Table 3 shows the crosstabulations for Question 8 by nation. Here the bullets are used to denote those nations that most frequently (35 percent or more) answered Foreign Languages to Question 8. These were Singapore, Holland, India, the Philippines, Israel, Turkey, and Egypt. Of course, the responses to this question, as can be seen in the table, are somewhat dictated by the percentages of respondents in these nations who cannot speak any other language and/or those who have no opportunities to speak with foreigners. In Nigeria, for instance, three-quarters of all respondents said they could not speak any foreign languages. Table 4 depicts the crosstabulations for Question 10 by nation. Responses were grouped into three categories: mother tongue, English, and other major languages. This table presents the results for those who selected English and those who did not. In terms of the indispensability of English for international communication in the future, virtually all respondents

388 Masamichi Sasaki, Tatsuzo Suzuki and Masato Yoneda

Table 1 Survey questions used for the analysis

Question 7: Would you like/prefer to use your mother tongue when talking with foreigners in your country? 1 = yes 2 = no Question 8: Which language, your mother tongue or any foreign language, do you tend to use when talking with foreigners in your country? Please choose one from this card. The card showed the following options: 1. My mother tongue because I cannot speak any foreign languages. 2. My mother tongue although I can speak foreign languages. 3. Foreign languages. 4. No opportunity to talk with foreigners. Question 10: Including your mother tongue, what languages do you think will be essential or indispensable for international communication in the future? Respondents simply listed language(s) in answer to this question (multiple choices). Question 11: Including your mother tongue, what languages do you think will be essential or indispensable for communication within your country in the future? Respondents simply listed language(s) in answer to this question (multiple choices). Question 12: Including your mother tongue, what languages would you like your children to learn? If you do not have children, what languages would you choose if you did have children? Respondents simply listed language(s) in answer to this question (multiple choices). Question 18: English is said to be the worlds dominant or most inuential language today. Do you agree or disagree? agree = 1 disagree = 2 Question 19: What do you think about English being the worlds dominant or most inuential language today? The possible responses were: 1. I think it is good that English is dominant. 2. I do not think it is good that English is dominant, but I see no alternative. 3. I do not think it is good that English is dominant, and I think more should be done to use other languages.

English as an International Language 389

Table 2 Crosstabulations of Question 7 by nation

390 Masamichi Sasaki, Tatsuzo Suzuki and Masato Yoneda

Table 3 Crosstabulations of Question 8 by nation

English as an International Language 391

Table 4 Crosstabulations of Question 10 by nation

392 Masamichi Sasaki, Tatsuzo Suzuki and Masato Yoneda

from all nations referenced English an average of 91 percent of the time. Only Brazil answered English less than 80 percent of the time (at 72 percent). Question 11 (see Table 5) asked respondents what languages they thought would be indispensable for international communication in the future within their own nation. Here again, responses were grouped into three categories: mother tongue, English, and other major languages. This table presents the results for those who selected English and those who did not. Bullets in Table 5 denote those nations where respondents answered English less often than average (the average for English was 60 percent). These nations include Argentina, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Indonesia, Taiwan, China, and Japan, with responses for English ranging from 16 to 49 percent. Clearly, this result is far from unanimous regarding respondents feelings about English usage in the future. There is certainly little question but that regional languages remain strong counterparts to English. Such languages include Spanish, Portuguese, Indonesian, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Hindi, and Arabic (cf. Fishman 1982; Al-Dabbagh 2005). Table 6 shows the crosstabulations for Question 12 by nation. Question 12 simply asked respondents what language they would like their children to learn. Here too, responses were grouped into three categories: mother tongue, English, and other major languages. This table presents the results for those who selected English and those who did not. It is notable that nearly 88 percent of all respondents from all 25 nations selected English. Outliers are not marked on Table 6, but a close inspection reveals that Brazil, Portugal, Indonesia, and Taiwan all had respondents selecting a language other than English more than 20 percent of the time (with Taiwan at a striking 34 percent). Question 18 (Table 7) simply asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed with the statement that English is said to be the worlds dominant or more inuential language today. Respondents from the 25 dierent nations agreed about 89 percent of the time. As in the previous table, outliers are not marked; however, if we select 19 percent as the cuto point for those disagreeing, we identify the following nations: Hungary, Portugal, Russia, India, and China. These nations disagreed with the statement about English quite a bit more often than did the remaining 20 nations. The last table, Table 8, depicts the results of crosstabulations for Question 19 by nation. Respondents were asked how they felt about English being the worlds dominant or most inuential language today. They could answer that (a) they think it is good that English is dominant; (b) they do not think it is good that English is dominant but they

English as an International Language 393

Table 5 Crosstabulations of Question 11 by nation

394 Masamichi Sasaki, Tatsuzo Suzuki and Masato Yoneda

Table 6 Crosstabulations of Question 12 by nation

English as an International Language 395

Table 7 Crosstabulations of Question 18 by nation

396 Masamichi Sasaki, Tatsuzo Suzuki and Masato Yoneda

Table 8 Crosstabulations of Question 19 by nation

see no alternative; or (c) they do not think it is good that English is dominant and they think more should be done to use other languages. Interestingly, 59 percent chose the rst and simplest answer: that it is good that English is dominant. Twenty-two percent chose the second option, while seventeen percent chose the third. Here again outliers are shown by bullets and include those nations whose respondents answered Not good and other languages more than 24 percent of the time.

English as an International Language 397

These nations include Brazil, Argentina, France, Spain, Russia, Turkey, and Egypt. Also notable in this crosstabulation are the responses of Korea, China, and Japan, with percentages for Not good but no alternative ranging from 34 to 57 percent. Exceptionally low percentages for Good are seen for Argentina, Spain, and Japan. From these ndings we can conclude that, in general, although the English language is regarded as the international language, how the importance of the English language is regarded in given nations has signicant impact on the results for these 25 nations. Correspondence analysis is a statistical technique which is useful for those who collect categorical data; for example, data collected in social surveys. The method is particularly helpful in analyzing crosstabular data in the form of numerical frequencies and results in elegant but simple graphic displays in Euclidean space, thereby facilitating rapid understanding of the data. The correspondence analyses yielded the results shown in Figures 2a and 3. Figure 2a depicts the actual numeric positions of the 25 nations with reference to the results for Questions 7, 8, and 19. Using Questions 7, 8, and 19, we identify three clusters: A, B and C, as shown in Figure 2b. Cluster A is composed of nations whose speakers tend to use their native language when talking with foreigners, who do not think Englishs dominance is good and who advocate greater use of other languages. Cluster A nations include Brazil, Argentina, Russia, France, Hungary, and Spain. Cluster B is composed of nations whose speakers tend to use their native language when talking with foreigners, and who do not think Englishs dominance is good but feel that there is no alternative. Cluster B nations include Japan, Korea, China, and Germany. Cluster C is composed of nations whose populace uses English when talking with foreigners and who think English dominance is good. Cluster C nations include Singapore, Egypt, the Philippines, India, Israel, Holland and Nigeria. Between Clusters A and B there are several nations with mixed elements, such as those that do not think that English dominance is good and that think more should be done to use other languages, and those that do not think that English dominance is good but that see no alternative. From Figure 2a, we can see that the X axis partitions the response categories of Questions 7 and 19. The positive side is composed of those nations that prefer to use English when talking with foreigners in their own nations and that think English dominance is good. The negative side is composed of those nations that use their mother tongue when talking with foreigners in their own nations and do not speak any foreign languages. The Y axis partitions those nations that think that English

Figure 2a Correspondence analysis for 25 nations using Questions 7, 8, and 19

.8

Brazil

.6

.4 Russia Argentine Spain .2 Hungary 0.0 Egypt Philippines

Nigeria Russia ArgentineFrance Thailand Spain Hungary Italy Holland Turkey Mongolia Indonesia Taiwan Portugal India Israel Vietnam

Singapore

398 Masamichi Sasaki, Tatsuzo Suzuki and Masato Yoneda

.2

Germany China

.4

Korea

.6

Japan 0.0 .5 1.0 1.5

.8 1.0

.5

Figure 2b Three clusters based on Questions 7, 8, and 19 for 25 nations

.8

.6

.4

Cluster A Cluster C

.2

0.0

.2

.4

Cluster B

.6

.8 1.0 0.0 .5

.5

1.0

1.5
Countries with mixed elements, such as those which do not think that Englishs dominance is good and which think more should be done to use other languages, and those which do not think that Englishs dominance is good but which see no alternative.

English as an International Language 399

Cluster A is composed of nations whose speakers tend to use their native language when talking with foreigners, who do not think Englishs dominance is good and who advocate greater use of other languages.

Cluster B is composed of nations whose speakers tend to use their native language when talking with foreigners, and who do not think Englishs dominance is good but feel that there is no alternative.

Cluster C is composed of nations whose populace uses English when talking with foreigners and who think Englishs dominance is good.

Figure 3 Correspondence analysis for 25 nations using Questions 8, 10, 11, 12 and 19

1.0

.8

Singapore Israel Holland

.6 Egypt India Indonesia Hungary Taiwan

.4

Thailand

Philippines

.2

400 Masamichi Sasaki, Tatsuzo Suzuki and Masato Yoneda

.0 China Argentine Spain Japan

.2

Italy Vietnam Nigeria Turkey Germany Mongolia France

Brazil Portugal Russia

.4

Korea .0

.6 .6

.4

.2

.2

.4

.6

.8

English as an International Language 401

dominance is not good but that see no alternative (bottom), and those that also think that English dominance is not good and that think more should be done to use other languages (upper). Next we focus more on the environment of English language usage by introducing a dierent set of questions. For this analysis we used Questions 8, 10, 11, 12 and 19 (see Figure 3). Here, the X-axis can be interpreted as an indication of greater or lesser tolerance for English as a foreign language, with the negative side of the axis suggesting greater tolerance for English as a foreign language and the positive side suggesting lesser tolerance. (To estimate the degree of tolerance, Question 11, Including your mother tongue, what languages do you think will be essential or indispensable for communication within your country in the future? was used.) With regard to the Y-axis, we can think of this as an indication of attitudes toward English as an international language versus the use of English as it is perceived that there is no other alternative for international communication. Thus, the negative (bottom) half of the axis suggests nations that would rather see languages other than English used for international communications but that see no alternative to English, while the positive (top) half of the axis suggests nations more comfortable with English as the dominant international language and that use English when talking with foreigners in their own nations. In sum, the crosstabulation and correspondence analyses revealed three patterns: (a) nations whose speakers use their native language when speaking with foreigners, who do not think English dominance is good and who advocate greater use of other languages; (b) nations whose speakers tend to use their native language with foreigners, and who do not think English dominance is good but feel that there is no alternative; and (c) nations whose populace uses English when speaking with foreigners and who think English dominance is good. Conclusion These ndings would appear to validate speculation about English being or becoming the dominant international language in our globalizing world and elucidating the actual attitudinal trends among nations regarding this phenomenon. These ndings are certainly consistent with the general claim about English usage as international language. The ndings further suggest that there are no immediate competitors to English presently on the horizon, indicating that English will continue to dominate international communication in the foreseeable future. As Pennycook (1994:8) has pointed out, those who use English as a foreign language are the hardest to estimate [in numbers] but clearly

402 Masamichi Sasaki, Tatsuzo Suzuki and Masato Yoneda

[the] fastest growing section of world speakers of English. As this study has shown, though, many of these English as foreign language users are not especially happy about it. Indeed, the data described here reinforce an extraordinary degree of ambivalence and/or discontent about using English. While this study has provided a wealth of new information about attitudes toward English as international language, the study too has perhaps raised more questions than it has answered. Nonetheless, this suggests that opportunities for further study should be strikingly apparent. And these opportunities include not only further analyses of the National Language Research Institutes vast survey data but also new data gathering opportunities. References
Al-Dabbagh, Abdulla. 2005. Globalism and the Universal Language. English Today 21(2):312. Ammon, Ulrich. 1994. The Present Dominance of English in Europe. Sociolinguistica 8:114. Bailey, Richard W. 1985. The Idea of World English. English Today 1:15. Baker, Colin. 1992. Attitudes and Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Barber, Bernard. 1982. Introduction. In Language Spread: Studies in Diusion and Social Change, edited by Robert L. Cooper. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Berns, Margie. 1988. The Cultural and Linguistic Context of English in West Germany. World Englishes 7:3749. . 1992. Sociolinguistics and the Teaching of English in Europe beyond the 1990s. World Englishes 11:314. Bickley, Verner. 1982. The International Uses of English: Research in Progress. In English for International Communication, edited by Christopher Brumt. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Bourdieu, P. 1976. The School as a Conservative Force: Scholastic and Cultural Inequalities. Pp. 192200 in Schooling and Capitalism, edited by R. Dale, G. Esland and M. MacDonald. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. . 1977. The Forms of Capital In Education: Culture, Economy, Society, edited by A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown and A. S. Wells. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bourdieu, P. and J.C. Passeron. 1990. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture (2nd edition). London: Sage. Brumt, Christopher. 1982. English as an International Language I: What Do We Mean by English? In English for International Communication, edited by Christopher Brumt. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Bryson, Bill. 1990. Mother Tongue: The English Language. London: Penguin books. Cooper, Robert L. and Joshua A. Fishman. 1977. Study of Language Attitudes. The Bilingual Review iv:734. Crystal, David. 1997. English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press . 2004. The Language Revolution. Cambridge: Polity Press. Deneire, Marc Gerard. 1993. Democratizing English as an International Language. Word Englishes 12:169178.

English as an International Language 403 Durkheim, Emile. 1938. Rules of Sociological Method. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Essen, Arthur van. 1997. English in Mainland Europe a Dutch Perspective. World Englishes 16:95103. Firth, J.R. 1970. The Tongues of Men and Speech, 1937. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fishman, Joshua A. 1998. The New Linguistic Order. Foreign Policy 113:2634. Hertzler, Joyce O. 1965. A Sociology of Language. New York: Random House. Iwasaki, Yasufumi. 1994. Englishization of Japanese and Acculturation of English to Japanese Culture. World Englishes 13:261272. Kachru, Braj B. 1985. Standards, Codication and Sociolinguistic Realism: The English Language in the Outer Circle. Pp. 1130 in English in the World, edited by Randolph Quirk and H.G. Widdowson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 1986. The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions and Models of Non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon Press. . 1991. Liberation Linguistics and the Quirk Concern. English Today 25:313. Lieberson, Stanley. 1982. Forces Aecting Language Spread: Some Basic Propositions. Pp. 3762 in Language Spread, edited by Robert L. Cooper. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Melchers, Gunnel and Philip Shaw. 2003. World Englishes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mesthrie, Rajend, Joan Swann, Andrea Deumert and William L. Leap. 2000. Introducing Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. National Language Research Institute. 1999. Attitudes toward Japanese Language: A Tentative Codebook. Tokyo: National Language Research Institute. Noss, R.B. (ed.). 1983. Varieties of English in Southeast Asia. Singapore: Singapore University Press. Pennington, Martha C. and Francis Yue. 1994. English and Chinese in Hong Kong: Pre-1997 Language Attitudes. World Englishes 13:120. Pennycook, Alastair. 1994. The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. London: Longman. Power, Carla. 2005. Not the Queens English. Newsweek, March 7:4759. Pride, John B. and Liu Ru-Shan. 1988. Some Aspects of the Spread of English in China since 1949. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 74:4170. Pulcini, Virginia. 1997. Attitudes toward the Spread of English in Italy. World Englishes 16:7785. Quirk, Randolph. 1987. The Question of Standards in the International Use of English. Pp. 229241 in Language Spread and Language Policy: Issues, Implications and Case Studies, edited by P.H. Lowenberg. Georgetown University Round Tables on Language and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Quirk, Randolph and H.G. Widdowson (eds.). 1985. English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shim, Rosa Jinyoung. 1994. Englishized Korean: Structure, Status, and Attitudes. World Englishes 13:225244. Smith, Larry E. (ed.). 1983. Readings in English as an International Language. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Spolsky, Bernard and Elana Shohamy. 1999. Language in Israeli Society and Education. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 137:93114. Strevens, Peter. l980. Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford: Pergamon Press. . 1982. World English and the Worlds Englishes; Or, Whose Language Is It, Anyway? Journal of the Royal Society of Arts 5311:418431.

404 Masamichi Sasaki, Tatsuzo Suzuki and Masato Yoneda Suzuki, Tatsuzo, RyozoYanagihara and Masato Yoneda. 2003. International Census on Japanese Language Usage Sampling Design and Survey Conducted among Surveyed Nations. Behaviometrika 58:729. Yong, Zhao and Keith Cambell. 1995. English in China. World Englishes 14:377390. Wright, Roger. 2004. Latin and English as World Languages. English Today 20(4):313.