1.3. Perspectives to the spread of English
The aim behind dealing with the perspectives to the spread of
English is to investigate what might be the causes of resisting the spread of
English and the reasons for supporting it. For this reason, these views of
`resistance to English spread' and those `supporters of English spread' will be
discussed in light of ideas about the position of English in the future as
forecasted by David Graddol (1997) in his book The future of English?,
which can help in our attempt to understand the perception of Tunisian
university science students later on in the discussion of the findings.
1.3.1. Resistance to English spread
Throughout history, some countries took decisions to block the
spread of English (Crystal, 2003). The former USSR and France are two examples
of countries where such efforts were deployed.
In fact, the soviets saw English as a dangerous threat to
communism. The reason behind this position was that the spread of English meant
the spread of thoughts. What the soviets seemed to be afraid of, actually, is
the spread of capitalism under the cover of the spread of English (Crystal,
2003). As discussed by Ajroud (1994), certainly the USSR had no problem with
disseminating the Russian language and communism in Eastern Europe. At the same
time it denounces the emergence of English and capitalism. The soviets depicted
English as the language of world capitalism and world domination (Crystal,
2003).
Another political argument comes this time from France, which
was threatened by the spread of English. Before the rise of English, French was
dominating world communication as the lingua franca but with the rise
of English, it has lost this position mainly in the 20th century
where «the international importance of other European languages,
especially French, has declined» (Graddol, 1997, p. 8). The
French, and for a long time, took practical decisions to deal
with this situation. They established the Haut Comité pour la
Défense et l'expansion de la Langue Française in 1966 and
strengthened their links with francophone countries (Phillipson, 1992).
The worldwide dominance of English was also criticised by
scholars such as Skutnabb-Kangas (1994) and Wardaugh (1987) for being the cause
of the loss of local languages. It has long been argued that «when one
language expands it restricts the dominance of another» (Derbel, 2004, p.
226). Such a situation happens when the dominant language earns more
«domains of use» while the dominated one «experiences domain
loss» (ibid). However, other scholars, such is the case of BruttGriffler
(2002) continue to claim that there is no correlation between the spread of a
language and the loss of local languages because the emerging language serves
only as an additional one and therefore its effect is benign. This last claim
could be refuted by the question that Pennycook (1994) raises concerning the
resulting extermination of minor (in terms of use) languages.
In parallel with the critical views of the spread of English,
we find views of those who claim that it is not a threatening language and that
in the contrary it opens many doors for knowledge, creativity, and economic
development. This position is going to be the concern of the second
sub-section.
| 
