Colonialingualism: colonial legacies, imperial mindsets, and inequitable practices in English language education

ABSTRACT

Translanguaging and plurilingual approaches in English Language Education (ELE) have been important for envisaging more equitable language education. However, the languages implemented in translanguaging or plurilingual classrooms predominantly reflect the knowledge and belief systems of dominant, nation-state, “official”, and/or colonial languages as opposed to those of endangered and Indigenous languages. This paper contends that privileging dominant colonial knowledges, languages, and neoliberal valorizations of diversity is Colonialingualism. Colonialingualism, covertly or overtly, upholds colonial legacies, imperial mindsets, and inequitable practices. Colonial languages carry colonial legacies and can perpetuate an imperialistic and neoliberal worldview. Languages can be disembodied from place and commodified as mere “resources”, important only for economic “value” rather than cultural importance, in a “modern” global, neoliberal empire. Colonialingualism resides in the “epistemological error” in dominant western thought, characterized by linguistic imperialism and cognitive imperialism; the view that humans are superior to nature; and white (epistemological) supremacy. This “epistemological error” dominates the current mainstream western worldview, institutions, pedagogies, mindsets, and ways of languaging. Colonialingualism is subtractive and detrimental to multilingual, multicultural learners’ identities and heritages; endangered, Indigenous languages and knowledges; minoritized communities; and our environment. This paper argues that: (1) colonialingualism illustrates the “transformative limits” of translanguaging and plurilingualism; and (2) an epistemic “unlearning” of the western “epistemological error” is required to enable equitable use of all languages, languaging processes, and knowledge systems, including those Indigenous and minoritized, in ELE. The example of heritage language pedagogy in the Canadian context will demonstrate how epistemic “unlearning” while languaging can take place.

Introduction

Translanguaging and plurilingual approaches in English Language Education (ELE) have been important for envisaging more equitable language learning and teaching practice. However, the languages implemented in ELE classrooms still tend to reflect the knowledge and belief systems of dominant, nation-state, “official,” and/or colonial languages as opposed to those of endangered and Indigenous languages (Ball & McIvor, 2013; Pennycook & Makoni, 2020; Phyak, 2021a, 2021b).

This paper contends that privileging dominant colonial histories, knowledges, languages, and “neoliberal valorizations of diversity” (Kubota, 2020) in ELE is colonialingualism. Colonialingualism covertly or overtly upholds colonial legacies, imperial mindsets, and inequitable practices. Colonialingualism is subtractive and detrimental to multilingual, multicultural learners’ identities and heritages; endangered, Indigenous languages and knowledges; minoritized communities; and our environment. Endangered Indigenous languages and knowledges, inseparable from culture and land (Chiblow & Meighan, 2021; McGregor, 2004), continue to face epistemic and linguistic threats as dominant colonialingual ideologies are upheld (Toulouse, 2018).

This paper has two main arguments. First, colonialingualism illustrates the transformative limits of translanguaging (Jasper, 2018) and plurilingualism. Second, an epistemic “(un)learning” (Laininen, 2019) of the western “epistemological error” is required to enable equitable validation of all languages and knowledge systems, including those Indigenous and minoritized, in ELE. The example of heritage language pedagogy (HLP; Meighan, 2019, 2021), in the context of Turtle Island (also known as North and Central America), will be given to illustrate how epistemic (un)learning and knowledge co-creation can address colonialingualism while learning English.

Extractive epistemological foundations and colonial legacies in English

The belief system, or worldview through which we language is fundamental (Meighan, 2021). The imbalanced focus and attention on dominant nation-state or colonial knowledge systems in ELE is problematic, harmful, and perpetuates epistemic injustices. The purpose of this article is not to discourage the learning of dominant languages since English in itself is not the problem. Bell hooks (1995) elaborates, “it is not the English language that hurts me, but what the oppressors do with it, how they shape it to become a territory that limits and defines, how they make it a weapon that can shame, humiliate, and colonize” (bell hooks, p. 296).

English carries a colonial, imperialist legacy and a eurocentric, human-centered worldview characterized by: (1) linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992) and cognitive imperialism (Battiste, 2013); (2) the view that humans are superior to nature (e.g., “human exceptionalism” [Haraway, 2008]); and (3) white (epistemological) supremacy (Gerald, 2020; Minde, 2003). There is a long history of how English has been imposed on nondominant cultures and “vernacular/inferior” languages under the tenets of “civilization” and linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992). The governing classes of the British empire assumed that English people, language, and culture had “matchless powers of political supremacy, commerce, wealth and literature … [which] … combine to diffuse the language, with all the excellences kindred to it throughout the whole world” (George, 1867, p. 4). Pennycook (2017) underscores that this presumed “cultural superiority was then considered to be reflected in the English language” (p. 99). Linguistic and cognitive imperialism has led to the linguistic and ethnic genocide of the peoples colonized by the British empire, such as that perpetrated by the residential school system in Canada (Battiste, 2013; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015).

In many cases, this colonial (hi)story is left out of western history books and/or plainly avoided in many forms of mainstream education, including plurilingual and translanguaging classrooms. The erasure of Indigenous Peoples, history, knowledges, languages, and facts results from an “epistemological error” (Bateson, 1972) which currently dominates the mainstream western worldview, education system, and the English language (Meighan, 2021; Laininen, 2019; Macedo, 2019). Examples of the epistemological error include: the human-caused climate and humanitarian crises; conceiving of and therefore treating land as resource as opposed to relative (Chiblow & Meighan, 2021); the commodification and disembodiment of language to meet demands of the neoliberal “free” market and capitalism (Battiste, 2013; Nakagawa & Kouritzin, 2021; Shin & Park, 2015); the positivist, “objective” view of western human as “superior” to nature or the “Other”; and a naïve empiricism and “arrogant elitism” in research and teaching (Macedo, 2019).

Inequitable ideologies and epistemologies in present-day ELE

There is a lack of historical balance and consideration of socio-cultural and socio-political contexts, such as the ongoing impacts and effects of colonization, in ELE and applied linguistics. This is not new; the imbalance in the field has been pointed out for decades (Canagarajah, 1999; Dorian, 1998; Phillipson, 1992).

The western imperialistic worldview continues to ignore “the imbalance in status and power between [majority and minority] languages” (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017, p. 108); promotes “monolingual ways of seeing multilingualism” (Piller, 2016); upholds inequalities of multilingualism (Tupas, 2015); and destroys language-oppressed people’s epistemologies (Phyak, 2021a). Language dominance, shift, or “death” is not natural or inevitable (Dorian, 1998; Skutnabb-Kangas & Dunbar, 2010). Language policy has enabled dominant language groups to maintain nation-state power and hegemony at the expense of Indigenous and minoritized language communities (Tollefson, 1991), where “subordinate languages are despised languages” (Grillo, 2009, p. 174). Phyak (2021a) explains, “Eurocentric epistemologies focus on the understanding of the nation-state as an imagined community of people speaking one standard language … such homogenous epistemologies consider multilingualism and cultural diversity as a problem for education and society” (p. 153). Multilingualism is also not new; it thrived across the globe prior to colonial and imperial expansion and “ideologies of contempt” toward Indigenous languages (Dorian, 1998; Grillo, 2009). Multilingualism was the normal, not the “problem” before the imagined one-nation, one-language community associated with the nation-state system (May, 2012; McIvor & McCarty, 2017; Phyak, 2021a). Eurocentric epistemologies are still prevalent, albeit unintentionally, in translanguaging and plurilingual ELE classrooms. In many cases, languaging and teaching is still carried out without regard for “minority speakers’ socio-political struggles” (Bonnin & Unamuno, 2021, p. 247).

The monolingual, as opposed to multilingual, ideology behind the expansion of English continues to benefit the elite governing forces of an international political economy or “global monoculture” (Shiva, 2000). Neoliberal monolingual and monocultural ideologies can further minoritize speakers of alternative languages and essentialize them as subjects groomed for work with “basic,” “functional,” or acritical, ahistorical transactional English skills (Kubota, 2020; Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2018; Shin & Park, 2015). Despite what is typically touted as a “selling point” for learning majority/colonial languages (a multibillion-dollar industry), learning English as a Second/Foreign language, even in plurilingual and/or translanguaging classrooms, does not always lead to transformative social change (Jasper, 2018), due to “epistemological racisms” (Kubota, 2020) and the privileging of white “native-speakers” and western knowledge systems.

Linguistic imperialism favors “one language over others in ways that parallel societal structuring through racism, sexism and class … [and] privilege[s] users of the standard forms of the dominant language, which represent[s] convertible linguistic capital” (Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2018, pp. 121–122). Linguistic imperialism perpetuates a (racio)-linguistic hierarchy (Rosa & Flores, 2017) and a “deficit ideology” (Phyak & De Costa, 2021) which positions English as a “neutral, useful” sociocultural commodity for speakers of alternative, non-dominant languages. Learning English is therefore often actively promoted, normalized, and internalized by learners and parents alike as the language to speak, the language of “prestige,” “progress,” or “civility” at the expense of alternative, “lesser” languages (Pennycook, 2017; Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2018). If unchecked or unaddressed in “one-size-fits-all” plurilingual and/or translanguaging classrooms, this deficit ideology means that the sole use of dominant languages and homogenous epistemologies can further subsume Indigenous and minoritized languages into a global, neoliberal monoculture (Bonnin & Unamuno, 2021; Jasper, 2018; Singleton & Flynn, 2021).

Colonialingual ideologies and pedagogies

Western human exceptionalism, imbalances, and injustices has led to, and upholds colonialingual ideologies and pedagogies in ELE. Present-day colonialingual ideologies and pedagogies include, but are not limited to:

1. Monolingual and monocultural learning environments, such as English-only classrooms with ethnocentric, white “native-speaker” materials (e.g., Kubota, 2020);

2. Decontextualized, disembodied language-as-resource, language-as-code tasks, such as acultural, ahistorical comprehension activities (e.g., Macedo, 2019);

3. Privileging the western print canon and “standard” forms of language, such as an idealized, upper middle class, homogenous language (e.g., Phyak, 2021a);

4. Deprivileging land- or place-based education, community, “vernacular” language forms and visual/aural/semiotic literacies and repertoires (e.g., Kusters et al., 2017; Leonard, 2017; Phyak & De Costa, 2021);

5. Extractive western research paradigms/methods, such as positivist, “objective” research on, not with or by Indigenous and minoritized peoples (e.g., Smith, 2012; Battiste, 2013); and

6. Physical, mental punishment and violence for speaking a heritage and/or Indigenous language (e.g., Smith, 2012; Chiblow & Meigha, 2021; Battiste, 2013).

Colonialingualism transmits imperial mindsets, knowledges, and belief systems through the teaching and learning of languages. Colonialingual ideologies influence how we language, the categorizations we use, what we value, and how we relate to each other, the environment, and the more than human. In colonialingual ELE, what is transmitted is a “colonial mentality,” or a “deficit ideology that justifies inequalities as the outcome of deficiencies (intellectual, economic, and political) of the marginalized groups … [and] disregards the fact that social inequalities, including language inequalities, are shaped by unequal sociopolitical structures and policies” (Phyak, 2021a, p. 228). For example, plurilingual approaches focus on the individual speaker’s plurilingual repertoire and the range of linguistic means available to them (Council of Europe, 2014). Due to unequal sociopolitical structures and policies, colonialism, (linguistic) genocide and trauma (Skutnabb-Kangas & Dunbar, 2010; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015), the range of “linguistic means” and/or “individual” agency is limited and restricted for marginalized groups. The focus is unduly on the individual’s competencies and/or deficiencies as opposed to ongoing unequal sociopolitical structures and policies (Phyak, 2021a). At the micro or classroom level, colonialingualism means that learners are viewed through a deficit lens and whiteness (Gerald, 2020). Learners are marginalized by white listening subjects (Rosa & Flores, 2017) and experience ethnic ambivalence/evasion (Tse, 1998), linguistic discrimination, and linguistic racism (Dovchin, 2020). In the ELE classroom, as Modiano (2001) puts it, “the learner’s mind is colonized through the acquisition of a foreign tongue” (p. 164).

On a macro level, the focus on colonialingual ideologies worldwide and the commodification of language means, in addition to the above-mentioned examples, that we become increasingly disconnected from our environment and nature (Meighan, 2022). The way we language and the worldview we enact have direct repercussions on how we treat those around us and the land (Meighan, 2021). For example, labeling respected, traditional territories as “wasteland” or animals as “wildlife” in English may mean we become more complicit in their mistreatment (Meighan, 2021). Linguistic commodification largely ignores the social, cultural, historical, and ecological grounding of language and the profound impact language has on positive identity formation and wellbeing (Hallett et al., 2007). As Nash (2018) remarks, “language and ideas of self and environment are amalgamated in complex relationships” (p. 359). The deconstructivist version of translanguaging – that is, the contention that languages do not exist – has dangerous implications for Indigenous and minoritized languages and peoples already subjected to colonial erasure and genocide (Battiste, 2013; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). If their languages and their communities do not exist, neither do multilingual societies or linguistic rights (MacSwan, 2020). Moreover, mainstream neoliberal multicultural education can essentialize and decontextualize culture as a stable “thing” or commodity, detached from place, that can be taught in classrooms to solve the “problem” of ethnic and cultural diversity in nation-states (May & Sleeter, 2010). May and Sleeter (2010) explain, “viewing culture as a set of concrete practices is reminiscent of an outdated colonial view that dominated the work of anthropologists until about 40 years ago” (p. 5). In short, a colonialingual understanding of multilingualism, plurilingualism, and translanguaging is limited and “is not in and of itself better than the monolingual mindset: it only reproduces the cultural superiority of essentialized linguistic icons while devaluing and erasing non-privileged cultural forms and identities” (Jia, 2021, para. 16).

Heritage language pedagogy as a means to address colonialingualism

Inequitable and detrimental colonialingual ideologies and pedagogies can be facilitated or perpetuated, even unwittingly, in the ELE classroom. The classroom is a political microcosm that reflects the belief system of the society at large and the (colonial) nation state (Pennycook, 2001). Laininen (2019) notes:

“They [schools] reflect deeply our Western worldview which is the underlying cause for the sustainability crisis … [and] … the main goal of education would be to give future generations tools for thinking and seeing the world differently, constructing their own worldviews, and acting to create a sustainable future.” (pp. 186-187)

There is a need to address colonialingual ideologies and pedagogies and (un)learn cognitive and linguistic imperialism so that all multilingual and multicultural learners are respected and validated in the English classroom. This paper puts forward a decolonizing heritage language pedagogy as one way in which this (un)learning could be put into practice. Heritage language pedagogy (HLP) is “a method through which all multicultural and multilingual learners, not only speakers or learners of dominant, non-endangered languages, can feel fully empowered and validated in an alternative holistic, earth-centered (as opposed to human-centered) learning process” (Meighan, 2022). A heritage language (HL) is “any language which has to some extent been diminished or disenfranchised as a result of another” and a heritage language speaker is “anyone who speaks, or is in the process of reclaiming, an ancestral language which has emotive and cultural significance” (Meighan, 2019, p. 2).

Heritage language education has been present in mainstream applied linguistics for some time now (Baker, 2001; Fishman, 2001; Leeman, 2015). My conceptualization and definition of HLP emphasizes earth-centered learning processes in an attempt to: (1) go beyond “human exceptionalism” (Haraway, 2008) and individualism (Shin & Park, 2015); (2) underscore the relational connection between language and place which “is not a primary language objective in many English and world language classrooms” (Engman & Hermes, 2021, p. 104); and (3) enable opportunities for diverse eco- and kin- centric knowledge systems, such as those Indigenous, to be engaged at both an epistemic and linguistic level in ELE. HLP therefore centers epistemic (un)learning and knowledge co-creation through “trans-systemic” (Battiste, 2013) exchanges while learning English. For example, learning Indigenous place names to highlight multilingualism and multiculturalism that “long predates the European invasion” in North America (McIvor & McCarty, 2017, p. 423), such as Tkaronto (Toronto). According to some Indigenous language experts, Tkaronto means “where there are trees standing in the water” in Mohawk (City of Toronto, 2022).

I similarly define HLs and their speakers differently to (1) avoid an overt focus on language alone, or linguicentrism (Spolsky, 2004); (2) stress complex epistemic, sociolinguistic, sociopolitical, and environmental factors; and (3) reflect the multifaceted, complex nature of multicultural and multilingual heritage language speakers. HLs and their speakers have been disenfranchised, minoritized, and/or even forcefully eradicated in the name of cognitive and linguistic imperialism and white (epistemological) supremacy (Meighan, 2019; Battiste, 2013; Pennycook, 2017; Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2018). HL speakers represent a rich tapestry of ancestries and cultures, very distinct languages, and a multitude of traditions across the world which have survived colonial “erase and replace” educational policies (McCarty & Nicholas, 2014, p. 107). HLs are necessarily context- and place- dependent since they are not monolithic nor fossilized in time. They are also dependent on the speaker’s “perception of what constitutes their heritage language” (Baker, 2001, p. 209). That is, a HL can be – in different lands, cultures, countries, regimes, or contexts – dominant, colonial, Indigenous, and/or minoritized (e.g., Baker, 2001; Fishman, 2001). For example, Spanish is a heritage, colonial, and minoritized language in the United States. Spanish is also a dominant global language (the second most widely spoken in the world), has official language status in Spain, and has been weaponized by colonial elites to colonize Latin America and the Iberian peninsula in southwestern Europe (Perez et al., 2021).

HLP seeks to problematize the uncritical adoption of dominant nation-state, colonial, and/or “official” languages, universal knowledge systems, or colonialingual ideologies in ELE translanguaging and plurilingual classrooms. As highlighted previously, translanguaging in ELE could, albeit unintentionally, result in language loss and further threaten endangered and/or Indigenous languages (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017; MacSwan, 2020; Pennycook & Makoni, 2020; Singleton & Flynn, 2021). Bonnin and Unamuno (2021) remark, “fashionable concepts such as translanguaging cannot be used uncritically without considering their origin and their ontological, disciplinary, and politico-epistemological contexts” (p. 249). Deconstructivist translanguaging and individual plurilingualism could perpetuate neoliberal multiculturalism and multilingualism whereby structural inequities are overlooked and only dominant, nation-state languages and knowledge systems are valued for their linguistic, economic, or cultural capital (Nakagawa & Kouritzin, 2021; Phyak, 2021a). Indigenous and minoritized languages can “end up being treated as mere resources, important only for their exchange value rather than cultural significance” (Pennycook & Makoni, 2020, p. 98). In addition, languages viewed as mere resources or commodities further severs the relational connection of language and place and normalizes and legitimizes environmental racism and injustice in times of climate crisis (Chiblow, 2019; McGregor, 2004).

HLP, through its emphasis on earth-centered learning processes, epistemic (un)learning, and “trans-systemic reconciliations” (Battiste, 2013, p. 11), aims to address colonialingual threats and the transformative limits of translanguaging and plurilingualism in ELE. HLP underscores and welcomes the relational connections between language, culture, and place (Chiblow & Meighan, 2021; Engman & Hermes, 2021). HLP seeks therefore to enable learners, and educators, to engage in a decolonial exchange of knowledges alongside language learning (emphasizing plurality of knowledge, not only one dominant universal western privileged system) where we can: (1) decolonize the mind by questioning existing belief systems and assumptions; (2) problematize the colonialingual inequities of the status quo; and (3) pose solutions to major and urgent real-life issues, such as the climate and humanitarian crises, by incorporating existing ancestral lifeways and heritage practices that have existed since time immemorial.

Heritage language pedagogy in practice

I have employed HLP in the ELE classroom by exploring texts which were not originally assigned as part of my “standard” ELE curriculum. For example, texts that were written by authors with a nondominant, alternative/ecocentric worldview, such as Indigenous authors/creators. In a post-secondary English for Academic Purposes (EAP) “upper-intermediate” class in Tkaronto (Toronto), I created a five-lesson mini-unit where we (learners and I) analyzed the rhetorical, grammatical, lexical, and cultural aspects of a text and produced an interactive video response and comment blog which documented our communal English language learning and knowledge co-creation journey. I named this multimodal online classroom blog and exchange of worldviews a Worldviewer (Meighan, 2021).

The Worldviewer enabled us to learn English through an alternative, decolonial lens. For example, in their videos, learners contrasted and compared the definition of water in the English dictionary as “odorless” or “tasteless” with the understanding that “Water is Life” in Indigenous worldviews and languages (e.g., Chiblow, 2019). We also reflected on our families’ heritage languages and cultures and shared these insights in our Worldviewer group/individual video responses and on the comment function of the Worldviewer class blog. We shared traditional Indigenous place names, what they meant, and compared sustainable agricultural practices in our heritage languages and cultures which shared ecological insights about the land. We also discussed phrases and the framing of the environment in dominant colonialingual English discourse, such as “the degradation of the environment.” We evaluated the impact of the nominalization of the English noun in this case. Who is degrading the environment? Why is the agent missing? What effect does this have on the meaning? We also shared ways in which we could make more earth-centered language (Stibbe, 2018) and metaphors to talk about the environment. For example, why do certain people call areas of land “wasteland,” “dumping ground,” or “dirt”? How do you relate to these words and treat this land? What would be another way of naming this land, which is more respectful of all its inhabitants, including human, animals, and more than human entities?

In our classroom, we engaged in trans-systemic knowledge co-creation and epistemic (un)learning as part of an earth-centered HLP while learning English. Learners shared examples of place- and/or culturally- specific concepts in their own languages and knowledge systems and elaborated in English to make meaning with peers on an epistemic and linguistic level. Learners responded positively to this since their unique knowledge systems, worldviews, perspectives, and identities were engaged during the entire language learning process. Words had a deeper meaning, resonance, and nuance during the knowledge co-creation process. We operated at a pluralistic trans-epistemic and trans-systemic level to expand on the benefits and limits of pedagogical translanguaging (Cenoz & Gorter, 2022). That is, HLP acknowledges the existence of, and implements insights from all languages – majority, minoritized, and/or Indigenous – and their associated knowledge systems. Battiste and Henderson (2021) underscore, “a trans-systemic synthesis acknowledges that no knowledge system is complete in itself; it exists with other knowledge systems … Within each knowledge system, many orientations, worldviews, languages, and ways of interpretation exist, as revealed by dialogues and disputes” (p. vii). Uncritical translanguaging or plurilingual approaches have transformative limits (Jasper, 2018; Pennycook & Makoni, 2020) and alone, without epistemic (un)learning, are not sufficient to address and be vigilant against colonialingualism.

Conclusion

Colonialingualism upholds colonial legacies, imperial mindsets, and inequitable practices in ELE through its reluctance to question or challenge the dominant western status quo at its epistemic foundations. An epistemic “(un)learning” of the western “epistemological error” is required to enable equitable validation of all languages and knowledge systems, including those Indigenous and minoritized, in ELE. As such, colonialingualism illustrates the transformative limits of translanguaging (Jasper, 2018) and plurilingualism in ELE. HLP, and the example of the Worldviewer, is proposed as a way in which educators and learners can begin to address colonialingual ideologies and pedagogies through knowledge co-creation while learning English.

This paper is a call to identify colonialingualism in ELE, pinpoint its destructive epistemic foundations, and start the conversation on alternatives so we can (un)learn inequitable practices. It is hoped that, by recognizing the symptoms of colonialingualism, we can prevent future harm and enable a respectful dialogue for more culturally and environmentally responsive practice in ELE and education more broadly.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Paul J. Meighan

Pòl I. Miadhachàin-Chiblow (Paul J. Meighan-Chiblow) is a Gàidheal (Scottish Gael) from Glasgow, Scotland. He is a PhD Candidate and SSHRC Joseph-Armand Bombardier Scholar in Educational Studies at the Department of Integrated Studies in Education, McGill University, Montréal, Canada. Paul is the recipient of the AAAL 2021 Multilingual Matters Graduate Student Award, the TIRF 2021 Doctoral Dissertation Grant, and is the co-winner of TIRF’s 2021 Russell N. Campbell Award. His research focuses on Indigenous language revitalization, decolonial education, and language education policy. Paul’s work has been published in AlterNative, TESOL Journal, ELT Journal, Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education Journal, and Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development.