Introduction:
介绍：

Perspectives & Disputes
观点与争议

+

a follow-up exercise on world Englishes
世界英语的后续练习

Ben Rampton & Roxy Harris 2020
本·兰普顿和罗克西·哈里斯 2020

This text comes from the introduction to R. Harris & B. Rampton (eds) 2003 The Language, Ethnicity and Race Reader (London: Routledge. pp 1-14). Because of this, it refers to ethnicity and race rather than other kinds of identity. But much of what it says has wider relevance, linking back to the lecture on ‘Language Identity & Culture’.
这段文字来自 R 的引言。 Harris & B. Rampton （eds） 2003 The Language， Ethnicity and Race Reader（伦敦：Routledge. pp 1-14）.因此，它指的是民族和种族，而不是其他类型的身份。但是它所说的大部分内容具有更广泛的相关性，与'语言身份与文化'的讲座有关。

The paper is followed by an activity which broadens the focus of discussion beyond race and ethnicity to the English language.
论文之后是一项活动，将讨论的焦点从 种族和民族扩大到英语。

This paper elaborates on some (but not all) of the points made in my lecture ‘Language, Identity & Culture: Perspectives & Disputes’, and it focuses on ethnicity and race ¹ in particular. It aims to:
他的论文详细阐述了我在讲座“语言、身份与文化：观点与争议”中提出的部分（但并非全部）观点，并特别关注民族和种族¹。它旨在：

show a range of the different ways in which language has been involved in arguments about race and ethnicity
展示了语言参与种族和民族争论的一系列不同方式

capture some of the major lines of disagreement, and
捕捉到一些主要的分歧，以及

indicate some of the broad shifts in the terms of debate over time.
指出了随着时间的推移，辩论术语的一些广泛变化。

Two broad points can be made right at the outset.
Two broad 的观点可以在一开始就提出。

Firstly, the social processes and arenas where language and ethnicity are seen to interact vary very considerably in their scale. Language, ethnicity and race have been taken together in discussions that focus on long-term historical processes and on wide-ranging global ones (colonialism, imperialism and global processes); they have featured together in accounts of state policy and institutional practice (covering e.g. nation states and minorities); and they have figured in analyses of the fine-grain of how individuals interact with one another face-to-face (focusing on language, discourse and cultural style).
首先，语言和种族互动的社会过程和领域在规模上差异很大。语言、民族和种族被放在一起，讨论的重点是长期的历史进程和广泛的全球进程（殖民主义、帝国主义和全球进程）; 它们一起出现在国家政策和制度实践的描述中（涵盖例如民族国家和少数民族）;它们还出现在对个人如何面对面互动的细微分析中（侧重于语言、话语和文化风格）。

Secondly, people mean a great many different things when they refer to ‘language’. In view of the fact that it’s so pervasively and intimately bound into the ways that humans do things together, this is hardly surprising, and in the articles that follow, among other things, language and languages are viewed
其次，当人们提到“语言”时，他们的含义有很多不同。鉴于它与人类共同做事的方式如此普遍和紧密地联系在一起，这并不奇怪，在接下来的文章中，除其他外，还提到了语言和语言

as sets of conventions for making sense that are shaped in distinctive ways within particular social groups - conventions operating at the level of sounds, words, grammar and/or ways of organising spoken and written texts (discourse)
作为在特定社会群体中以独特方式形成的一组意义约定——在声音、单词、语法和/或组织口语和书面文本（话语）的方式层面上运作的约定

as emblems of allegiance, as objects of disdain, as emotive symbols that create intimacy, solidarity or distance
作为忠诚的象征，作为鄙视的对象，作为创造亲密、团结或距离的情感符号

as forms of representation that shape, facilitate but also sometimes challenge group stereotypes and a sense of ‘us’ and ‘them’
作为塑造、促进但有时也挑战群体刻板印象和“我们”和“他们”意识的代表形式

as valued and unevenly distributed modes of communication that include, develop and privilege some people, while excluding and disadvantaging others.
作为有价值且分布不均的通信方式，包括、发展和特权某些人，同时排斥和不利于其他人。

In fact, far from providing a neutral vantage point above the fray, the academic study of language is itself well-established as an ideological enterprise, influencing our perceptions of ethnicity and race. Indeed, when the Anglo and European world encounters populations it commonly deems to be ‘Other’, scholars appear to wrestle with one of two dualistic frameworks of interpretation. With the first and older of these frameworks, scholars work with, for, and against, a governing assumption that the ‘West’ is civilised, advanced, ‘modern’, and that the Others are primitive, traditional, ‘pre-modern’. When the second framework becomes salient, the assumptions of Anglo and European modernity are thrown open to question, hitherto dominant categories and evaluations of language and ethnicity are destabilised, and a ‘post-’ or ‘late modern’ view of the world starts to assert itself. We can elaborate on these two highly influential interpretive tensions as follows.
事实上，语言的学术研究远非提供一个凌驾于纷争之上的中立有利位置，它本身就是一项公认的意识形态事业，影响着我们对民族和种族的看法。事实上，当盎格鲁和欧洲世界遇到他们通常认为是“他者”的人群时，学者们似乎在与两种二元论解释框架之一作斗争。在这些框架中的第一个和较旧的框架中，学者们与一个支配性的假设合作，即“西方”是文明的、先进的、“现代的”，而其他人是原始的、传统的、“前现代的”。当第二个框架变得突出时，盎格鲁和欧洲现代性的假设就受到了质疑，迄今为止占主导地位的语言和种族的类别和评价变得不稳定，“后”或“后现代”的世界观开始显现。我们可以详细阐述这两个极具影响力的解释张力如下。

In the first framework, pre-modern Others are described from the viewpoint of ‘western’ modernity, in an encounter that has been enormously important for social science. According to Anthony Giddens, sociology had its origins in the shift from the traditional to the modern, in “the arrival of industrialism, the transfer of millions of people from rural communities to cities, the progressive development of mass democracy” (1990:15), and between them, sociology, anthropology and linguistics built images of traditional society as an agrarian world of ‘tribes’ and ‘natives’, of kinship and folk customs, of ritual oratory and oral narrative. In fact, through processes of contrast, these representations constructed a vision of the ‘Other’ that helped to define what Anglo and European modernity itself should be. Instead of tribes and kinship, modernity was characterised by an orientation to citizenship and nation- states, to reason rather than custom, to literacy above oracy, argument above narrative, and education over traditional socialisation. And this scheme of oppositions continued to operate when the focus on distant places moved back home to the Anglo and European world. Exotic ‘tribes’ became ‘ethnic minorities’, and the preoccupation with difference was translated into debates about whether and how modern institutions like schools might become more hospitable to the diversity of putatively ‘non- modern’ others in their midst.
在第一个框架中，前现代他者是从“西方”现代性的角度来描述的，这是一次对社会科学极其重要的相遇。根据安东尼·吉登斯 （Anthony Giddens） 的说法，社会学起源于从传统到现代的转变，“工业主义的到来，数百万人从农村社区转移到城市，大众民主的逐步发展”（1990：15），在它们之间，社会学、人类学和语言学构建了传统社会的形象，即“部落”和“土著”的农业世界。 关于亲属关系和民俗，关于仪式性的演讲和口头叙述。事实上，通过对比过程，这些表现构建了一种“他者”的愿景，这有助于定义盎格鲁和欧洲现代性本身应该是什么。现代性的特点是公民身份和民族国家、理性而非习俗、识字高于口语、争论高于叙事、教育优于传统社会化，而不是部落和亲属关系。当对遥远地方的关注回到英国和欧洲世界时，这种反对计划继续运作。异国情调的“部落”变成了“少数民族”，对差异的关注被转化为关于学校等现代机构是否以及如何更友好地接受他们中间被认为“非现代”他人的多样性的辩论。

In recent years, however, this vision of a binary contrast between tradition and modernity has started to lose its power, giving way to the second ‘problematic’. Here, the claim is that contemporary versions of free market capitalism have undermined the authority of the modern nation-state, and that globalisation has brought a massive increase in the people, commodities and services that flow across territorial boundaries. In modernity, citizenship and national belonging have been highly prized, but now it is often said that growing value is attached to mobility itself (Bauman 1998:2), and that this may start to undermine the modernist equation of ‘ethnic minority’ with ‘disadvantage’. Rather than simply being a source of stigma, transnational diaspora connections are sometimes capable of providing ‘immigrant communities’ with substantial economic and social resources, and these connections may be consolidated by the development of cable, satellite, and multi-modal digital media, forms of communication that are themselves increasingly coming to displace print literacy and public broadcasting, the traditional media of the nation-state (Anderson 1983, Morley and Robins 1995, Castells 1996). In addition, the emergence of global cities provides an environment where multilingualism and cultural hybridity are treated as natural and normal, and this also presents a challenge to the authority of elite cultural canons and national standard languages (Hannerz 1996, also Harris, Leung and Rampton 2001).
然而，近年来，这种传统与现代之间的二元对立的愿景已经开始失去其力量，让位于第二个“有问题”的。在这里，人们声称当代版本的自由市场资本主义削弱了现代民族国家的权威，而全球化带来了跨越领土边界的人口、商品和服务的大量增加。在现代性中，公民身份和国家归属感一直受到高度重视，但现在人们经常说，日益增长的价值与流动性本身有关（Bauman 1998：2），这可能会开始破坏“少数民族”与“劣势”的现代主义等式。跨国侨民联系不仅仅是耻辱的来源，有时能够为“移民社区”提供大量的经济和社会资源，这些联系可以通过有线、卫星和多模式数字媒体的发展得到巩固，这些通信形式本身正越来越多地取代印刷素养和公共广播，即民族国家的传统媒体（Anderson 1983， Morley 和 Robins 1995 年，Castell 1996 年）。此外，全球城市的出现提供了一个环境，使多语言和文化混合被视为自然和正常，这也对精英文化经典和国家标准语言的权威提出了挑战（Hannerz 1996，还有 Harris、Leung 和 Rampton 2001）。

It is hard trying to put precise dates on the emergence of the ‘pre-modern’, ‘modern’ and ‘post- modern’, and exactly how far these shifts reflect really fundamental changes in the way that real people use and experience language, race and ethnicity in their everyday lives is a very difficult empirical question (See Comaroff & Comaroff 1992 for a powerful critique of the idea that these terms identify fundamental differences in how people live). For this reason, it is often safer to conceive of them as ‘perspectives’ in Anglo and European discourse than as ‘historical eras’, and indeed, it would be a serious mistake to assume that the primitive-modern dichotomy is now outdated and no longer influential as an underlying assumption in research and public discourse.
很难准确确定'前现代'、'现代'和'后现代'的出现日期，而这些转变究竟在多大程度上反映了真实人们在日常生活中使用和体验语言、种族和民族的方式的真正根本性变化，是一个非常困难的实证问题（参见Comaroff & Comaroff 1992对这些术语识别出人们生活方式的根本差异这一观点的有力批评）。 出于这个原因，将它们视为盎格鲁和欧洲话语中的“观点”往往比作为“历史时代”更安全，事实上，假设原始-现代二分法现在已经过时并且不再作为研究和公共话语的基本假设具有影响力，那将是一个严重的错误。

‘Perspectives’, though, are still crucial both to how we understand the world and to how (and whether) we try to change and influence it, and discussions around late/post-modernity have offered some very consequential shifts in what we think language, ethnicity and race might be. Overall in recent years, rather than imagining that languages, cultures and communities are thing-like entities, relatively clear-cut facts in the world that can be easily identified, described or counted, it has become more common to treat them as ideas and categories that we use to interpret and organise human activity, human activity itself being really far more fluid, ambivalent and indeterminate than any of these categories allow. In line with this, researchers are now often (though by no means always) less concerned about defining the ‘essence’ of a particular language or culture - its core features or central underlying system - and instead, they are more inclined to attend to the ways in which linguistic and cultural activity as a highly varied but very general human process gets divided up and maintained as, for example, ‘standard English’, or ‘black culture’. How do people actually construct and police the boundaries between one way of speaking and another, between one group and another? What’s involved when one set of practices is selected, promoted and imposed as an emblematic ideal, and what’s been downgraded or excluded, why and how? What are the discourses - the images, representations, practices and events - that hold these divisions and categories in place, giving them a real material presence in the world, impacting in such concrete ways on people’s life chances, and what are the discourses that promise/threaten to disrupt them?
然而，“观点”对于我们如何理解世界以及我们如何（以及是否）试图改变和影响它仍然至关重要，围绕晚期/后现代性的讨论为我们认为的语言、民族和种族可能是什么提供了一些非常重要的转变。总的来说，近年来，人们不再想象语言、文化和社区是类似事物的实体，是世界上相对明确的事实，可以很容易地识别、描述或计算，而是将它们视为我们用来解释和组织人类活动的想法和类别，人类活动本身确实更加流动。 矛盾和不确定，比这些类别中的任何一个都允许。与此相一致，研究人员现在通常（尽管并非总是）不太关心定义特定语言或文化的“本质”——其核心特征或核心基础系统——相反，他们更倾向于关注语言和文化活动作为一个高度多样化但非常普遍的人类过程被划分和维护的方式， 例如，“standard English”或“black culture”。人们实际上是如何构建和监管一种说话方式与另一种说话方式之间、一个群体与另一个群体之间的界限的？当一组实践被选择、推广和强加为象征性理想时，涉及什么，什么被降级或排除，为什么以及如何？是什么话语——图像、表征、实践和事件——将这些划分和类别固定在适当的位置，赋予它们在世界上真正的物质存在，以如此具体的方式影响人们的生活机会，以及承诺/威胁要破坏它们的话语是什么？

We can see the effects of these kinds of shift in perspective if we briefly review some developments in how ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ themselves have been addressed.
如果我们简要回顾一下如何解决“种族”和“民族”本身的一些发展，我们可以看到这种观点转变的影响。

Contemporary academic discussions generally agree that race is a social and cultural construction rather than a biological-scientific fact.² But modernity has been inextricably linked with the setting- up of massive systems of slavery and colonial domination (see Winant 2000), and as a crucial element in the ideological maintenance of these systems, from the late 18th Century onwards Anglo and European scholars tried to develop elaborate schemes of racial classification, built on biological and genetic foundations, with Europeans invariably placed at the top at the most advanced evolutionary stage, Africans at the bottom, and a variety of colonised others in between. These efforts took both written and pictorial form;³ they often involved comparing races in intricate would-be scientific measurements of body parts like skulls, lips, noses and even buttocks; and this interest in racially based, ranked systems of classification extended to the work of linguistic scholars, evidenced in this volume in casual and unself-conscious references to ‘backward races’, ‘savages’, and ‘primitive languages’ (Ashcroft 2001). In the 20th Century, ‘scientific’ theories of race were discredited in a major way when the claims about race as a biological category propounded by European racists and fascists in the 1930s led to the Holocaust and the general destruction of World War 2 (Rex 1987). In addition, the post-1945 period saw independence and liberation movements ending European colonial rule, as well as the civil rights, black power and anti-racist movements, and all of these opposed the depradations associated with biological notions of race. But outside the academic world, pseudo-biological/scientific perspectives are still often felt to fit well with common sense ideas of race. For many people, significant populations around the world can be neatly grouped on the basis of their physical appearance, and this is frequently expressed in (unsatisfactory and inaccurate) colour designations like ‘black’, ‘white’ and ‘yellow’, or in classifications like Asian, Caucasian and African. In fact, one popular way of characterising the racial dimension is to nest it as one of a collection of elements that make up ethnicity - a common ancestry, a common language, a common religion and a distinctive physical appearance (Banton 2001). Counterposed to this, the most recent contemporary challenge to this way of imagining race/ethnicity lies in the post-modern shift of interest away from identifying essences and locating them in classification systems, to analysing practices and the social processes of categorisation themselves. This becomes clearer if we turn to ‘ethnicity’.
当代学术讨论普遍认为，种族是一种社会和文化建构，而不是生物科学事实。²但现代性与大规模奴隶制和殖民统治制度的建立有着千丝万缕的联系（见 Winant 2000），作为意识形态维护这些制度的关键因素，从 18 世纪后期开始，盎格鲁和欧洲学者试图发展建立在生物和遗传基础上的精心设计的种族分类方案， 欧洲人总是在最高级的进化阶段处于顶端，非洲人处于底部，而介于两者之间的各种殖民者则处于两者之间。这些努力采取了书面和图片的形式;³他们经常涉及在对头骨、嘴唇、鼻子甚至臀部等身体部位进行复杂的科学测量中比较种族;这种对基于种族的排名分类系统的兴趣延伸到语言学者的工作中，在本卷中对“落后种族”、“野蛮人”和“原始语言”的随意和无意识的引用中得到了证明（Ashcroft 2001）。在 20世纪，当欧洲种族主义者和法西斯主义者在 1930 年代提出关于种族作为生物类别的主张导致大屠杀和第二次世界大战的全面破坏时，种族的“科学”理论受到了重大质疑（Rex 1987）。 此外，1945 年后时期见证了独立和解放运动结束了欧洲的殖民统治，以及民权、黑人权力和反种族主义运动，所有这些都反对与种族生物学概念相关的堕落。但在学术界之外，伪生物学/科学观点仍然经常被认为与种族的常识性观念非常吻合。对于许多人来说，世界各地的重要人群可以根据他们的外貌整齐地进行分组，这经常用（不令人满意和不准确的）颜色名称来表示，如“黑”、“白”和“黄”，或以亚洲、高加索和非洲等分类来表示。事实上，描述种族维度的一种流行方式是将其嵌套为构成种族的元素集合之一——共同的祖先、共同的语言、共同的宗教和独特的外貌（Banton 2001）。 与此相反，这种想象种族/民族的方式的最新当代挑战在于，后现代的兴趣从识别本质并将其定位在分类系统中，转向分析分类的实践和社会过程本身。如果我们转向“种族”，这一点就会变得更加清晰。

In everyday discussion, ethnicity is often equated with a ‘racially’ marked culture. It is assumed that individuals possess (or belong to) cultures that are relatively discrete, homogeneous and static, and that through childhood socialisation and community experience, ethnic culture provides us with tacit but distinctive, ingrained dispositions.
在日常讨论中，种族通常等同于“种族”标记的文化。假设个人拥有（或属于）相对离散、同质和静态的文化，并且通过童年的社会化和社区体验，种族文化为我们提供了隐性但独特的、根深蒂固的性格。 This view of ethnicity-as-a-fixed-and-formative- inheritance has, however, been criticised as ‘ethnic absolutism’ (Gilroy 1987:Ch 2),
然而，这种将种族作为固定和形成性继承的观点被批评为“种族绝对主义”（Gilroy 1987：Ch 2），⁴ and contrasted with an approach in which ethnicity is regarded as something that people can emphasise strategically
与人们可以战略性地强调种族的方法形成鲜明对比 in a range of different ways, according to their needs and purposes in particular situations
根据他们在特定情况下的需求和目的，以一系列不同的方式 (see e.g. Barth 1969 and Moerman 1974).
（参见例如 Barth 1969 和 Moerman 1974）。 Instead, in this ‘strategic’ view, ethnicity is viewed more as a relatively flexible resource that individuals and groups use in the negotiation of social boundaries, aligning themselves with some people and institutions, dissociating from others, and this is sometimes described as a ‘roUtes’ rather than a ‘roOts’ conception of ethnicity. Compared with its predecessor, this version gives more credit to free will and active agency. However, it is still compatible with ethnicity-as-inheritance if you assume that people are limited by their ethnic-genetic descent to three options: either (a) embracing and cultivating their ethno-cultural/linguistic legacy, (b) trying to downplay and drop it as a category that is relevant to them, or (c) drawing attention to the different ethnicities of other people (most often in negative stereotyping). Going one step further, though, a fourth set of possibilities emerges, in which people don't sit contentedly in the group categories that society tries to fix them in, and don't confine themselves only to those identities that they are expected to have legitimate or routine access to: (d) taking on someone else’s ethnicity, or creating a new one. This has been a major concern in the most recent work focusing on ‘hybridity’ and ‘new ethnicities’
相反，在这种“战略”观点中，种族更多地被视为个人和群体在协商社会界限时使用的相对灵活的资源，与一些人和机构保持一致，与他人分离，这有时被描述为“roUtes”而不是“roOts”种族概念。与前作相比，这个版本更多地赞扬了自由意志和主动能动性。然而，如果你假设人们受其种族遗传血统的限制，只有三种选择，那么它仍然与种族作为遗传是兼容的：（a） 接受和培养他们的种族文化/语言遗产，（b） 试图淡化并放弃它作为与他们相关的类别，或 （c） 引起人们对其他人不同种族的关注（最常见的是负面的刻板印象）。然而，更进一步，出现了第四组可能性，其中人们不会满足于社会试图将他们固定在其中的群体类别中，也不会将自己局限于他们被期望合法或常规访问的那些身份：（d） 接受他人的种族，或创建一个新的种族。这一直是最近专注于“混合”和“新种族”的工作中的主要关注点 (see Hewitt 1986, Gilroy 1987, Hall 1988,
（参见 Hewitt 1986， Gilroy 1987， Hall 1988， Mercer 1994, Rampton 1995)
Mercer 1994， Rampton 1995）, and there is clearly a very complicated range of processes and influences involved - on the one hand, for example, sensitive long-term negotiations about the significance of ethnic identity within close interethnic friendship, and on the other, the commercial marketisation of ethnic forms, products and symbols as commodities, life-style options and art objects. These processes of mixing, blurring and cross-identification - processes that a close look at language can often make really apparent - certainly don’t make ethnicity
显然，这涉及一系列非常复杂的过程和影响——例如，一方面是关于种族身份在密切的种族间友谊中的重要性的敏感的长期谈判，另一方面是作为商品、生活方式选择和艺术品的民族形式、产品和符号的商业市场化。这些混合、模糊和交叉识别的过程——仔细观察语言往往可以真正明显地发现——当然不会产生种族 disappear.
消失。 Indeed, they often provoke intense argument around issues like authenticity, entitlement and expropriation. But they do encourage us even more to problematise the traditional assumption that we are simply responding to clear-cut biological identities when ethnicity and race are salient, inviting us ever more emphatically to treat these two terms as cultural constructs promoted, transgressed, defended or reworked in language, discourse and social activity.
事实上，它们经常引发围绕真实性、权利和征用等问题的激烈争论。但它们确实鼓励我们更加质疑传统的假设，即当民族和种族突出时，我们只是在回应明确的生物身份，这让我们更加强调地将这两个术语视为在语言、话语和社会活动中被促进、超越、捍卫或改造的文化结构。

We believe, then, that in pointing to some far-reaching tensions and shifts in the way we understand and experience the world, terms like ‘tradition’, ‘modernity’, ‘late/post-modernity’ are rather important to an understanding of the debates about language, ethnicity and race. But to complete these initial notes of guidance, it is worth introducing just one more set of distinctions
因此，我们相信，在指出我们理解和体验世界的方式中一些影响深远的紧张和转变时，诸如“传统”、“现代性”、“晚期/后现代性”等术语对于理解关于语言、民族和种族的辩论相当重要。 但是，为了完成这些初步的指导说明， 值得再引入一组区别

These distinctions are broadly compatible with some of the ideas we have already discussed, but they reckon more explicitly with the issues of power and inequality to which ‘ethnicity’ and ‘race’ are so intimately tied.
这些区别与我们已经讨论过的一些观点大体兼容，但它们更明确地考虑了“民族”和“种族”密切相关的权力和不平等问题。

In debates about the relationship between different races, ethnic and indeed other kinds of social group,⁵ three or four general positions on the significance of difference are commonly identified:
在关于不同种族、民族和其他类型社会群体之间关系的辩论中，⁵关于差异的重要性，通常可以确定三四种一般立场：

the first, characterised as the deficit position, stresses the inadequacies of subordinate (out)groups and the importance of their being socialised into dominant (in)group norms;
首先，以赤字地位为特征，强调从属（外）群体的不足以及他们被社会化为主导（内）群体规范的重要性;

in the second, difference is the key word and emphasis is given to the integrity and autonomy of the subordinate group's language and culture, and to the need for institutions to be hospitable to diversity;
第二种是关键词，强调从属群体语言和文化的完整性和自主性，以及机构需要包容多样性;

in the third, the focus shifts to larger structures of domination, and the need for institutions to combat the institutional processes and ideologies that reproduce the oppression of subordinate groups;
在第三个方面，重点转移到更大的统治结构上，以及机构需要对抗复制从属群体压迫的制度过程和意识形态;

the fourth, which can be summarised as a discourse perspective, challenges the view (taken by the other three) that communities, cultures and languages are homogeneous and easily defined. Larger social, economic and political systems may play a major part in structuring relations of domination, but they can’t be understood outside discourse and interaction, and the complexity of social experience makes it hard to predict the impact on particular groups and individuals. In line with this, there is a lot of emphasis on the cultural politics of imagery and representation.
第四个可以概括为话语视角，挑战了社区、文化和语言是同质的且易于定义的观点（由其他三个人采取的）。更大的社会、经济和政治制度可能在构建统治关系方面发挥重要作用，但它们无法在话语和互动之外被理解，而且社会经验的复杂性使得很难预测对特定群体和个人的影响。与此相一致，非常强调图像和表现的文化政治。

There is obviously a good deal of conflict between these four interpretations of the basic character of diversity, and different perspectives have gained ascendency at different times in different places. But there is an elaboration of these for perspectives in Table 1, and you may well find that this Table is helpful when you start comparing and contrasting the different texts that you read in the course of this module (though don’t expect any particular article to fit perfectly into just one of the columns!). In fact, to start engaging with the grid in Table 1, there is a task after it which invites you to consider the grid’s relevance to some short texts extracted from the writings of four scholars writing about the global position of the English language.
显然，这四种对多样性基本特征的解释之间存在着很大的冲突， 不同的观点在不同的时间、不同的地方占据了主导地位。但是表 1 中对这些观点进行了详细说明，当您 开始比较和对比您在模块过程中阅读的不同文本时，您可能会发现此表很有帮助（尽管不要指望任何特定的 article 能够完美地适应 只是其中一列！ 事实上，要与 表 1 中的 网格互动，在它之后有一个任务，它邀请您考虑网格与从四位学者关于英语全球地位的著作中摘录的一些短文的相关性。

--------------

References
引用

Anderson, B. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism.
安德森，生于 1983 年。 想象的社区：对民族主义起源和传播的反思。

London: Verso.
伦敦：Verso。

Banton, M. 2001 Progress in ethnic and racial studies. Ethnic and Racial Studies 24 (2) 173-194. Barth, F. 1969. Introduction. In F. Barth (ed) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. London: Allen &
Banton， M. 2001 民族和种族研究的进展。 民族和种族研究 24 （2）： 173-194。巴特，F. 1969 年。介绍。在 F. Barth （ed） Ethnic Groups and Boundaries 中。 伦敦：Allen &

Unwin. 9-39.
取消。9-39.

Bauman, Z. 1998. Globalisation: The Human Consequences. Cambridge: Polity Press.
鲍曼，Z. 1998 年。 全球化：人类的后果。 剑桥：政治出版社。

Cameron, D. 1996. The language-gender interface: Challenging co-optation. In V. Bergvall, J. Bing & A. Freed (eds) Rethinking Language and Gender Research London: Longman. 31-53
卡梅隆，D. 1996 年。语言-性别界面：挑战拉拢。在V. Bergvall， J. Bing和A. Freed（编辑）重新思考语言和性别研究伦敦：朗文。 31-53

Castells, M. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
卡斯特尔斯，M. 1996 年。 网络社会的兴起。 牛津：布莱克威尔。

Comaroff, J. & J. Comaroff. 1992. Ethnography and the Historical Imagination. Boulder: Westview Press.
科马洛夫，J. & J. 科马洛夫。1992. 民族志和历史想象。 博尔德：Westview Press。

Giddens, A. 1990 Social Theory and Modern Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gilroy, P. 1987. There Ain’t no Black in the Union Jack. London: Hutchinson.
Giddens， A. 1990 社会理论和现代社会学。 剑桥：政治出版社。吉尔罗伊，第 1987 页。 英国国旗里没有黑人。 伦敦：哈钦森。

Hall, S. 1988. New ethnicities. ICA Documents 7: 27-31.
霍尔，S. 1988 年。新种族。ICA 文件 7：27-31。

Hannerz, U. 1996. Transnational Connections. London: Routledge.
Hannerz， U. 1996 年。 跨国联系。 伦敦：劳特利奇。

Harris, R, C. Leung & B. Rampton 2001. Globalisation, diaspora and language education in England. In D. Block & D. Cameron (eds) Globalisation and Language Teaching. London: Routledge. 29-46.
Harris， R， C. Leung & B. Rampton 2001 年。英格兰的全球化、侨民和语言教育。在 D. Block & D. Cameron （eds） 全球化和语言教学中。 伦敦：劳特利奇。29-46.

Hewitt, R. 1986. White Talk, Black Talk: Interracial Friendship and Communication among Adolescents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
休伊特，R. 1986 年。 白人谈话，黑人谈话：青少年之间的异族友谊和交流。 剑桥：剑桥大学出版社

Le Page R 1988 "Some premises concerning the standardisation of languages, with special reference to Caribbean Creole English" International Journal of the Sociology of Language 71 25-36
Le Page R，1988 年，“关于语言标准化的一些前提，特别提到加勒比克里奥尔英语”，《国际语言社会学杂志》，71,25-36

Mercer, K. 1994. Welcome to the Jungle: New Positions in Black Cultural Studies. London & New York: Routledge.
默瑟，K. 1994 年。 欢迎来到丛林：黑人文化研究的新位置。伦敦和纽约：劳特利奇。

Moerman, M. 1974. Accomplishing ethnicity. In R. Turner (ed) Ethnomethodology. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 54-68
莫尔曼，M. 1974 年。完成种族。在 R. Turner （ed） Ethnomethodology 中。哈蒙兹沃思：企鹅出版社。54-68

Morley, D. and D. Robins 1995. Spaces of Identity: Global Media, Electronic Landscapes and Cultural Boundaries. London: Routledge.
Morley， D. 和 D. Robins 1995 年。 身份空间：全球媒体、电子景观和文化边界。 伦敦：劳特利奇。

Pieterse, J. N. 1992 White on Black: Images of Africa and Blacks in Western Popular Culture. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Pieterse， J. N. 1992 年，《黑底白字：西方流行文化中的非洲和黑人形象》。纽黑文和伦敦：耶鲁大学出版社。

Pratt, M. L. 1987. Linguistic utopias. In N. Fabb, D. Attridge, A. Durant & C. MacCabe (eds) The Linguistics of Writing. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 48-66.
普拉特，ML，1987 年。语言乌托邦。在N. Fabb， D. Attridge， A. Durant & C. MacCabe （eds） The Linguistics of Writing.曼彻斯特：曼彻斯特大学出版社，48-66。

Rabinow, P. (ed) 1991 The Foucault Reader: An Introduction to Foucault’s Thought. London: Penguin Books
Rabinow， P. （ed） 1991 福柯读本：福柯思想导论。 伦敦：企鹅图书

Rampton, B. 1995. Crossing: Language & Ethnicity among Adolescents. London: Longman. (3^rd Edition. London: Routledge).
兰普顿，生于 1995 年。 穿越：青少年的语言和种族。 伦敦：朗文。（第 3^版。 伦敦：劳特利奇）。

Rex, J. 1983 Race Relations in Sociological Theory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Winant, H. 2000 Race and Race Theory. Annual Review of Sociology. 26:169-85
Rex， J. 1983 社会学理论中的种族关系。伦敦：Routledge & Kegan Paul Winant，H. 2000 种族和种族理论。社会学年鉴。26：169-85

Table 1: Four Orientations to Linguistic and Cultural Diversity
表 1：语言和文化多样性的四个方向

Follow-up task
后续任务

Perspectives on Global English
全球英语的观点

The following extracts are taken from some important contributions to debate about the global spread of English. How far does the grid ‘Four orientations to linguistic and cultural diversity’ (page 7 above) help to make sense of them?
以下摘录自关于英语全球传播的辩论的一些重要贡献。网格“语言和文化多样性的四个方向”（上文第 7 页）在多大程度上有助于理解它们？

Read each of the extracts in turn and reflect on their similarities and differences. Then look carefully at the grid – which extracts seem to fit in which columns, and how clear is the fit?
依次阅读每篇摘录并反思它们的相似之处和不同之处。然后仔细查看网格 – 哪些数据提取似乎适合哪些列，拟合有多清晰？

Keep a note of your responses, and whatever problems you have experienced engaging in this activity.
记下您的回答，以及您在参与此活动时遇到的任何问题。

Kachru, Braj. 1982. Introduction: The Other side of English. In B. Kachru (ed) The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Oxford: Pergamon. 1-12
卡赫鲁，布拉杰。1982. 引言：英语的另一面。在 B. Kachru （ed） The Other Tongue： English Across Cultures 中。 牛津：Pergamon。1-12

[This book,] The Other Tongue is the first attempt to integrate and address provocative issues relevant to a deeper understanding of the forms and functions of English. The questions one might ask about this bilingual (or multilingual) English speech community are not necessarily the same questions one might ask about those users whose first or only language is English. For example, what were the historical reasons for initiating bilingualism in English in various parts of Asia or Africa? What factors motivated the retention of English after the end of the colonial period? What is the sociolinguistic profile of each variety, and how does it contribute to the development of subvarieties? What linguistic and contextual parameters resulted in the nativisation of English on the one hand, and the Englishisation of the native languages on the other? What new English-based codes of communication have resulted from communicative strategies such as code-mixing and code-switching? What type of interaction is there between non-native and native users in a particular setting, and what determines the choice of an endo-normative or exo-normative ‘standard’ for each? What are the stylistic and other characteristics of the new English literatures, and in what sense are these localised? What differentiates a bilingual’s use of English from a monolingual’s view of language use? What is the typology of non-native varieties of English at various levels? (p.6)
[这本书]《另一种语言》是整合和解决与更深入地理解英语形式和功能相关的挑衅性问题的第一次尝试。人们可能会问的关于这个双语（或多语言）英语语音社区的问题，不一定与那些第一语言或唯一语言是英语的用户可能问的问题相同。例如，在亚洲或非洲的不同地区开始用英语使用双语的历史原因是什么？哪些因素促使英国在殖民时期结束后保留下来？每个变体的社会语言特征是什么，它如何促进亚变体的发展？哪些语言和语境参数导致了英语的本土化，以及母语的英语化？编码混合和编码转换等交际策略产生了哪些新的基于英语的通信代码？在特定环境中，非母语用户和母语用户之间存在什么类型的互动，是什么决定了每个人选择内规范或外规范“标准”？新英国文学的文体和其他特征是什么，它们在什么意义上是本地化的？双语者对英语的使用与单语者对语言使用的看法有什么区别？不同级别的非母语英语变体的类型是什么？（第 6 页）

--------------

Quirk, Randolph. 1990. Language varieties and standard language. English Today 21 3-10
怪癖，伦道夫。1990. 语言变体和标准语言。今日英语 21 3-10

A FEW months ago, the Department of Education and Science in London published a very important document on the teaching of English […] in Britain (Kingman, 1988)¹…. The conclusions of the Kingman Committee strike most people as wholly sensible. It is the duty of British schools, says the report, “to enable children to acquire Standard English, which is their right” (p. 14) – a statement which may seem so obvious and unsurprising that the only surprise is why it needs to be stated…. I would like to invite you to consider to what extent – if any – this report has relevance for the teaching of English outside Britain: specifically, in countries such as Japan and Germany, Senegal and India – countries where English is not a native language…
几个月前，伦敦教育与科学部发布了一份关于英国英语教学的非常重要的文件 [...]（Kingman，1988）¹....金曼委员会的结论让大多数人觉得是完全合理的。报告说，英国学校有责任“让孩子们获得标准英语，这是他们的权利”（第 14 页）——这句话似乎是如此明显和不足为奇，唯一令人惊讶的是为什么需要说明......我想邀请您考虑一下这份报告在多大程度上（如果有的话）与英国以外的英语教学相关 ：特别是在日本和德国、塞内加尔和印度等国家——英语不是母语的国家......

….

Half-baked quackery
半生不熟的江湖骗子

When we turn from the […] problems of countries like India and the Philippines to countries like Spain and Japan which have little or no legacy of localised English on the streets, in offices, or in markets, we would surely expect to find no… conflicts about teaching Standard English. And so it is for the most part, no doubt. But not entirely. Ill-considered reflexes of liberation linguistics and a preoccupation with what the Kingman Report calls ‘exposure to varieties of English language’ intrude even here. And this in two respects.
当我们从印度和菲律宾等国家的 [...]问题转向像西班牙和日本这样的国家，这些国家在街道、办公室或市场上几乎没有或根本没有本地化英语的遗产，我们肯定会期望找不到...... 关于教授标准英语的冲突。毫无疑问，在大多数情况下都是如此。但并非完全如此。解放语言学的考虑不周和对金曼报告所说的“接触各种英语语言”的关注甚至侵入了这里。这在两个方面。

First, the buoyant demand for native-speaking English teachers means that one occasionally finds, in Tokyo or Madrid, young men and women teaching English with only a minimal teacher training, indeed with little specialised education: they’re employed because, through accident of birth in Leeds or Los Angeles, they are native speakers of English. Not merely may their own English be far from standard but they may have little respect for it and may well have absorbed (at second or third hand) the linguistic ethos that is simplified into the tenet that any English is as good as any other.
首先，对以英语为母语的教师的旺盛需求意味着，在东京或马德里，人们偶尔会发现年轻的男女教英语，他们只接受过最低限度的教师培训，实际上几乎没有受过什么专业教育：他们之所以被雇用，是因为在利兹或洛杉矶的意外出生，他们的母语是英语。他们自己的英语不仅可能远非标准，而且他们可能很少尊重它，并且很可能已经吸收了（第二手或第三手）语言精神，这种精神被简化为任何英语都与其他英语一样好的原则。

One such young Englishman approached me after a lecture I’d given in Madrid a few months ago. Why, he asked, had I distinguished between the nouns message and information as countable and uncountable?² His students often wrote phrases like several informations and since he understood what was meant, how could they be wrong? In some wonderment that I was actually talking to a British teacher of English, I gently explained about Standard English being the norm by which we taught and made judgments. He flatly disagreed and went on to claim that he could not bring himself to correct a Spanish pupil for using a form that had currency in an English dialect – any English dialect. “She catched a cold” is as good as “She caught a cold”, he ended triumphantly and strode away.
几个月前我在马德里的一次演讲后，一位这样的年轻英国人走近了我。他问道，为什么我要区分名词 message 和 information 是 countable 和 uncountable？² 他的学生经常写一些短语，就像几个信息一样，既然他明白其中的意思，他们怎么会错呢？我有点奇怪，我实际上是在和一位英国英语老师交谈，我温和地解释说，标准英语是我们教学和做出判断的规范。他断然不同意，并继续声称他无法纠正一个西班牙学生使用英语方言的形式——任何英语方言。“她感冒了”和“她感冒了”一样好，他得意洋洋地结束了，大步走了。

Let’s hope that such half-baked quackery is rare because the other respect in which ‘exposure to varieties’ is ill-used is not all that rare, I fear. This is where academic linguists from Britain or America, sometimes with little experience of foreign language teaching, are invited to advise on teaching English abroad. If by training or personal interest they share the language ethos that the Kingman Report criticises, their advice – merely a bit controversial in its original British or American educational context – is likely to be flagrantly misleading when exported with minimal adaptation to, say, Japan. Indeed, it can even happen with consultants who have years of hands-on elt experience.
让我们希望这种半生不熟的江湖骗子是罕见的，因为恐怕 “接触品种 ”被滥用的另一个方面并不是那么罕见。在这里，来自英国或美国的学术语言学家（有时几乎没有外语教学经验）被邀请为在国外教授英语提供建议。如果他们在培训或个人兴趣上与金曼报告所批评的语言精神相同，那么他们的建议——在最初的英国或美国教育背景下只是有点争议——在输出到日本等地时，很可能会公然产生误导。事实上，它甚至可能发生在具有多年实践经验的顾问身上。

An example. A year or so ago, the Japan Association of Language Teachers invited a British educationist to address their annual convention. I learned about this from a worried Japanese official who drew my attention to the text of this British expert’s address published in Tokyo. It warned teachers not to make “overly hasty judgments about the language performance of learners”, and particular emphasis was given by the expert to the following statement: “Language behaviour which at first sight appears to be flawed may in fact be a manifestation of a new – though as yet unrecognised – variety of English.” (Coleman, 1987, p. 13).³ I was also asked about the Four Seasons Composition Book (Pereira & O’Reilly, 1988)⁴ in which Japanese students are told that “if you can make yourself understood … that is good enough” since their attempts constitute “a respectable variety of English”.
一个例子。大约一年前，日本语言教师协会邀请了一位英国教育家在他们的年度大会上发表演讲。我从一位忧心忡忡的日本官员那里得知了这件事，他提请我注意这位英国专家在东京发表的演讲内容。它警告教师不要 “对学习者的语言表现做出过于草率的判断”，专家特别强调了以下陈述：“乍一看似乎有缺陷的语言行为实际上可能是一种新的——尽管尚未被认识的——英语变体的表现。“（科尔曼，1987 年，第 13 页）。³ 我还被问到关于四季作文书（Pereira & O'Reilly，1988）⁴的问题，其中日本学生被告知“如果你能让自己被理解......这已经足够好了“，因为他们的尝试构成了”一个可观的英语变体”。

The implications of this, if hard-working Japanese teachers took such advice seriously, are quite horrendous. Students, ‘liberally’ permitted to think their ‘new variety’ of English was acceptable, would be defenceless before the harsher but more realistic judgment of those with authority to employ or promote them. They have in effect been denied the command of Standard English which, to quote the Kingman Report yet again, “is more likely to increase the freedom of the individual than diminish it” (p. 3).
如果勤奋的日本教师认真对待这些建议，其影响是相当可怕的。学生们被“自由地”允许认为他们的“新英语种类”是可以接受的，在那些有权雇用或推广他们的人更严厉但更现实的评判面前，他们将毫无防备。他们实际上被剥夺了标准英语的控制权，再次引用金曼报告，“更有可能增加个人的自由，而不是减少个人的自由”（第 3 页）。

--------------

Mazrui, Alamin. 1997. The World Bank, the language question and the future of African education Race & Class, 38 (3): 35-48
马兹鲁伊，阿拉明。1997. 世界银行，语言问题和非洲教育的未来 种族与阶级， 38 （3）： 35-48

There is a contest going on in African education between English, primarily, as a medium of instruction, and the indigenous languages. It is a contest in which the World Bank is playing a role ostensibly at odds with its expressed position. The process of colonial education had the general effect of marginalising most African languages in favour of Euro-languages, creating an imperialist linguistic configuration that came to legitimise and reproduce the unequal division of power and resources between the speakers of Euro-languages and speakers of African languages. The overwhelming majority of post-colonial African governments inherited educational systems with Euro-languages as the predominant media of instruction. To date, only a tiny minority of sub-Saharan African nations – like Somalia, Ethiopia, Tanzania and the Sudan – have succeeded in extending instruction in African languages beyond the lower primary levels, and, even in these anomalous cases, post-primary education has remained the exclusive preserve of Euro-languages.
在非洲教育中，英语（主要是作为教学语言）与土著语言之间正在进行一场竞争。在这场比赛中，世界银行扮演的角色表面上与其所表达的立场相悖。殖民教育过程的普遍效果是将大多数非洲语言边缘化，以支持欧洲语言，创造了一种帝国主义语言配置，使欧洲语言使用者和非洲语言使用者之间的权力和资源不平等分配合法化并复制了。绝大多数后殖民非洲政府都继承了以欧洲语言为主要教学媒介的教育体系。迄今为止，只有极少数撒哈拉以南非洲国家——如索马里、埃塞俄比亚、坦桑尼亚和苏丹——成功地将非洲语言的教学扩展到小学低年级之外，而且，即使在这些异常情况下，初等后教育仍然是欧洲语言的专属领域。

The linguistic set-up in African education that was bequeathed to the continent by the colonial dispensation has prompted two kinds of responses over the years. There is, first, the functionalist response which stresses the inevitability and even usefulness of English, suggesting that, because of its global status, because of its wealth of publications, because of its ‘affinity’ with the inherited school system, English is a natural choice as the medium of African education. As soon as Kenya became independent in 1963, for example, the Ominde Commission (set up specifically to advise the government on issues of educational policy) recommended that English be used from the first grade of elementary education on the grounds that it would expedite learning in all subjects – partly by avoiding what was presumed to be a difficult transition from the ‘vernaculars’, and partly because of the language’s own ‘intrinsic’ resourcefulness.⁵ The Commission’s report thus gave further impetus to the growing momentum for the introduction of English as a medium of instruction at an earlier phase in education than even under the British. The Kenya government is a prime example of a regime that has continued to be influenced by functionalist ideology concerning the place of English in African education.
多年来，殖民时代留给非洲大陆的非洲教育中的语言设置引发了两种反应。首先，功能主义的回应强调英语的必然性甚至有用性，认为由于其全球地位，由于其丰富的出版物，由于它与继承的学校系统的“亲和力”，英语是作为非洲教育媒介的自然选择。例如，肯尼亚于 1963 年独立后，Ominde 委员会（专门为就教育政策问题向政府提供建议而成立）建议从小学一年级开始使用英语，理由是这将加快所有科目的学习速度——部分原因是避免了被认为从“方言”的艰难过渡。 部分原因是该语言自身的“内在”足智多谋。⁵ 因此，该委员会的报告进一步推动了在教育的早期阶段引入英语作为教学语言的势头，甚至比英国时期还要早。肯尼亚政府是一个典型的例子，该政权继续受到关于英语在非洲教育中地位的功能主义意识形态的影响。

At the other extreme is the nationalist response which advocates the re-centring of African languages in African educational instruction. This school of thought has been influenced principally by the views of the United Nation’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) on the use of so-called vernacular languages in education. Since the 1950s, it has been UNESCO’s position that (a) the ‘vernaculars’ are superior to the foreign languages in enhancing cognitive skills in a child’s early education, and (b) as media of instruction, ‘vernaculars’ may promote linguistic skills that facilitate, rather than inhibit, the acquisition of the imperial language at a later stage in the educational process.⁶
另一个极端是民族主义的反应，它主张在非洲教育教学中重新以非洲语言为中心。这一思想流派主要受到联合国教育、科学及文化组织 （UNESCO） 关于在教育中使用所谓方言的观点的影响。自 1950 年代以来，联合国教科文组织的立场是 （a） “方言”在提高儿童早期教育的认知技能方面优于外语，以及 （b） 作为教学媒介，“方言”可以促进语言技能，从而促进而不是抑制在教育过程的后期阶段习得皇家语言。⁶

.....

Elsewhere I have had occasion to argue that while Euro-languages have historically been carriers of imperialist discourse, they can and sometimes have been transmuted to serve as instruments of resistance against imperialist discourse.⁷ Similar sentiments have been expressed by Alastair Pennycook, who has called for all applied linguists and English teachers around the world to ‘become political actors engaged in a critical pedagogical project to use English to oppose the dominant discourses of the West and to help the articulation of counter-discourses in English’.⁸
在其他地方，我曾有机会论证说，虽然欧洲语言在历史上一直是帝国主义话语的载体，但它们可以而且有时已经被转化为抵抗帝国主义话语的工具。^“7 阿拉斯泰尔·彭尼库克（Alastair Pennycook）也表达了类似的观点，他呼吁世界各地的所有应用语言学家和英语教师”成为政治参与者，参与一项批判性的教学项目，利用英语来反对西方的主流话语，并帮助用英语表达反话语”。⁸

But to use English to create counter-discourses and counter-ideologies does not necessarily amount to undermining the language’s role in consolidating the global capitalist market, in stratifying labour for the benefit of international capital, or in reducing dependency on the West in the educational sphere. Furthermore, counter-discourse is not the same thing as independent discourse. Counter-discourse is often a reactive process to the terms of discourse established by the ‘other’. The African quest for intellectual independence must be based on independent terms of reference that can guide the continent towards a more organic path. Under the present global configuration of power relations, the English language is not likely to allow Africans the politico-economic space for this kind of intellectual independence. African languages may fare better, for the very act of re-centring them sets in motion new dynamics that may provide some room for intellectual manoeuvre, at least in the short run. But the struggle to recentre these languages naturally demands our engagement in a wider struggle – against imperialism, and against organisations like the World Bank and IMF and what they represent – to create a new world order.
但是，用英语来创造反话语和反意识形态，并不一定等同于削弱该语言在巩固全球资本主义市场、为国际资本的利益而对劳动力进行分层或减少教育领域对西方的依赖方面的作用。此外，反话语与独立话语不是一回事。反话语通常是对“他者”建立的话语术语的反应过程。非洲对知识独立的追求必须建立在独立的职权范围之上，这些职权范围可以引导非洲大陆走向一条更加有机的道路。在目前的全球权力关系结构下，英语不太可能让非洲人拥有这种知识独立的政治经济空间。非洲语言可能会表现得更好，因为重新集中它们的行为本身就引发了新的动力，至少在短期内，这可能会为智力活动提供一些空间。但是，重新调整这些语言的斗争自然要求我们参与更广泛的斗争——反对帝国主义，反对世界银行和国际货币基金组织等组织及其所代表的东西——以建立一个新的世界秩序。

--------------

A. Pennycook 1995. ‘English in the world/the world in English’ in J.W. Tollefson (ed.), Power and Inequality in Language Education. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 34-58
A. Pennycook 1995 年。“世界上的英语/英语中的世界”，J.W. Tollefson（编辑），语言教育中的权力与不平等。剑桥，剑桥大学出版社，34-58

.... I am arguing here for an avoidance of totalising theories of social and cultural reproduction in favour of a critical paradigm that acknowledges human agency and looks not only at how people’s lives are regulated by language, culture, and discourse but also at how people both resist those forms and produce their own forms.... (p. 48)
....我在这里主张避免社会和文化再生产的总体化理论，而支持一种批判范式，它承认人类的能动性，不仅着眼于人们的生活如何受到语言、文化和话语的调节，还着眼于人们如何抵制这些形式并产生自己的形式......（第 48 页）

.... Following Foucault’s (1980:81)⁹ formulation, I suggest... that by asking what forms of knowledge have been disqualified and subjugated by dominant discourses, we could attempt to bring about the ‘insurrection of subjugated discourses’. More generally, I would suggest that counter-discourses can indeed be formed in English and that one of the principal roles of English teachers is to help this formulation. Thus, as applied linguists and English language teachers we should become political actors engaged in a critical pedagogical project to use English to oppose the dominant discourses of the West and to help the articulation of counter-discourses in English. At the very least, intimately involved as we are with the spread of English, we should be acutely aware of the implications of this spread for the reproduction and production of global inequalities. (p.55)
....按照福柯 （1980：81）⁹ 的公式，我建议......通过询问哪些形式的知识被主流话语所取代和征服，我们可以尝试带来“被征服话语的起义”。更一般地说，我认为反话语确实可以在英语中形成，而英语教师的主要作用之一就是帮助这种形成。因此，作为应用语言学家和英语教师，我们应该成为政治参与者，参与一个批判性的教学项目，用英语来反对西方的主流话语，并帮助用英语表达反话语。至少，由于我们密切参与英语的传播，我们应该敏锐地意识到这种传播对全球不平等的复制和生产的影响。“（第 55 页）