EFL Teachers’ Perceptions of Linguistic Imperialism and Globalization in English Language Teaching Curriculum

Subject Areas : English Language Teaching

Mostafa Rafiei ¹ , Hassan Soleimani ² , Hamed Barjesteh ³

1 -
2 -
3 -

Received: 2025-01-02 Accepted : 2025-02-02 Published : 2025-03-16

Keywords: English language education, English language hegemony, globalization, linguistic imperialism, language teaching curriculum,

Abstract :

The global expansion of the English language remains a highly debated topic in applied linguistics and political discourse, as it intertwines with issues of power, identity, and cultural dominance. The phenomenon of English spreading globally is often viewed as both a tool for communication and a hegemonic force that imposes linguistic and cultural uniformity. This duality is particularly relevant in contexts with pronounced political, cultural, social, and ideological differences, where the implications of linguistic imperialism and globalization on educational systems are profound. Recognizing the pivotal role of educators in mediating these influences, the present study explores Iranian EFL teachers’ perceptions of linguistic imperialism and globalization within the English language teaching curriculum. Additionally, the study examines how contextual factors influence their attitudes toward these phenomena. To achieve these objectives, a mixed methods research design was employed. Quantitative data were gathered through a comprehensive questionnaire administered to 674 Iranian EFL teachers, while qualitative insights were obtained through semi-structured interviews with a subset of participants. The findings reveal that cultural and contextual factors, including sociopolitical dynamics and local educational policies, significantly shape teachers’ attitudes toward linguistic imperialism. Teachers expressed concerns about the dominance of English potentially eroding local languages and cultures, yet many also acknowledged its utility as a global lingua franca. The study highlights the tension between embracing English for its practical benefits and resisting its perceived role in perpetuating cultural hegemony. The implications of this study extend to policymakers, curriculum designers, and educators, emphasizing the need to balance global linguistic trends with respect for local identities and values. Addressing these complex dynamics requires thoughtful integration of global and local perspectives in English language teaching. The study contributes to the broader discourse on linguistic imperialism, offering insights for fostering a more equitable and culturally responsive approach to English language education.

References:

second and foreign language writing contexts: A review of the literature. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 43, 139-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.03.002
Chen, R. T.-H. (2022). Effects of global Englishes-oriented pedagogy in the EFL classroom. System, 111, 102946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102946
Cheng, L., Wu, Y., & Liu, X. (2015). Chinese university students’ perceptions of assessment tasks and classroom assessment environment. Language Testing in Asia, 5(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-015-0020-6
Dang, T. K. A., Nguyen, H. T. M., & Le, T. T. T. (2013). The impacts of globalisation on EFL teacher education through English as a medium of instruction: an example from Vietnam. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(1), 52-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2013.780321
Daoud, S., & Kasztalska, A. (2023). Exploring native-speakerism in teacher job recruitment discourse through Legitimation Code Theory: The case of the United Arab Emirates. Language Teaching Research, 0(0), 13621688211066883. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211066883
Galloway, N. (2013). Global Englishes and English language teaching (ELT) – Bridging the gap between theory and practice in a Japanese context. System, 41(3), 786-803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.019
Hamid, M. O., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2016). Foreign language policies in Asia and Australia in the Asian century. Language Problems and Language Planning, 40(1), 26-46. https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.40.1.02ham
Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language (Vol. null). Oxford University Press.
Hornberger, N. H., Tapia, A. A., Hanks, D. H., Dueñas, F. K., & Lee, S. (2018). Ethnography of language planning and policy. Language Teaching, 51(2), 152-186. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000428
Jakubiak, C. (2012). “English for the global”: Discourses in/of English-language voluntourism. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(4), 435-451. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2012.673029
Kamusella, T. (2020). Global language politics: Eurasia versus the rest. Journal of Nationalism, Memory & Language Politics, 14(2), 117-151. https://doi.org/doi:10.2478/jnmlp-2020-0008
Kaschula, R. H., & Wolff, H. E. (2020). The transformative power of language: From postcolonial to knowledge societies in Africa. Cambridge University Press.
Kidwell, T. (2021). Protectors and preparers: novice Indonesian EFL teachers’ beliefs regarding teaching about culture. Language and Intercultural Communication, 21(5), 631-645. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2021.1913179
Kirkpatrick, A., & Lixun, W. (2020). Is English an Asian language? Cambridge University Press.
Lai, M. L. (2021). English linguistic neo-imperialism – A case of Hong Kong. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 42(4), 398-412. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1702667
Le, M. D., Nguyen, H. T. M., & Burns, A. (2021). English primary teacher agency in implementing teaching methods in response to language policy reform: a Vietnamese case study. Current Issues in Language Planning, 22(1-2), 199-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2020.1741209
Lim, F. V., Toh, W., & Nguyen, T. T. H. (2022). Multimodality in the English language classroom: A systematic review of literature. Linguistics and Education, 69, 101048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2022.101048
Mackenzie, L. (2022). Linguistic imperialism, English, and development: implications for Colombia. Current Issues in Language Planning, 23(2), 137-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2021.1939977
Manan, S. A., & Hajar, A. (2022). English as an index of neoliberal globalization: The linguistic landscape of Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan. Language Sciences, 92, 101486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2022.101486
McDonald, E. (2013). Embodiment and meaning: moving beyond linguistic imperialism in social semiotics. Social Semiotics, 23(3), 318-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2012.719730
Muslim, A. B., Suherdi, D., & Imperiani, E. D. (2022). Linguistic hegemony in global recognition: English-mediated internationalisation at Indonesian higher education institutions. Policy Futures in Education, 20(7), 796-811. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103211037285
Phillipson, R. (2012). Imperialism and colonialism. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy (pp. 203-225). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511979026.013
Phillipson, R. (2013). Linguistic imperialism continued. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203857175
Samar, R. G., & Davari, I. H. (2011). Liberalist or alarmist: Iranian ELT community's attitude to mainstream ELT vs. critical ELT. TESOL Journal, 5, 63-91.
Schneider, E. W. (2020). English around the World: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Siqueira, S. (2017). Intercultural language educators for an intercultural world: action upon reflection. Intercultural Education, 28(4), 390-407. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2017.1334396
Slaughter, Y., & Cross, R. (2021). Challenging the monolingual mindset: Understanding plurilingual pedagogies in English as an Additional Language (EAL) classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 25(1), 39-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820938819
Smail, G. (2017). Politicized pedagogy in Morocco: A comparative case of teachers of English and Arabic. International Journal of Educational Development, 53, 151-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.01.007
Sorensen, T. B., & Dumay, X. (2021). The teaching professions and globalization: A scoping review of the anglophone research literature. Comparative Education Review, 65(4), 725-749. https://doi.org/10.1086/716418
Spolsky, B. (2012). The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy (B. Spolsky, Ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/CBO9780511979026
Starks, D., & Nicholas, H. (2020). Reflections of Vietnamese English language educators on their writer identities in English and Vietnamese. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 19(3), 179-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2019.1655423
Tajeddin, Z., & Ghaffaryan, S. (2020). Language teachers’ intercultural identity in the critical context of cultural globalization and its metaphoric realization. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 49(3), 263-281. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2020.1754884
Troudi, S. (2020). Critical issues in teaching English and language education: International research perspectives. Springer.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2020). English language teaching and teacher education in East Asia: Global challenges and local responses. Cambridge University Press.
Vo, T. D., Gleeson, M., & Starkey, L. (2022). The glocalisation of English-medium instruction examined through of the ROAD-MAPPING framework: A case study of teachers and students in a Vietnamese university. System, 108, 102856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102856
Wang, L., & Fang, F. (2020). Native-speakerism policy in English language teaching revisited: Chinese university teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards native and non-native English-speaking teachers. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1778374. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1778374
Xu, Z. (2013). Globalization, culture and ELT materials: a focus on China. Multilingual Education, 3(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/2191-5059-3-6
Yao, C. W., Collins, C., Bush, T., Briscoe, K. L., & Dang, N. L. T. (2022). English as a ‘double barrier’: English medium instruction and student learning at Vietnamese transnational universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(4), 1372-1386. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1896485