Филологические науки/

7. Язык, речь , речевая коммуникация

Taisyia Zaplitna

Chernivtsi National Yurii Fed’kovych University, Ukraine

Globalization of Society and Language Communications

In the media and the world of education, globalization is primarily conceived as a threat that strikes us from without, as a worldwide coercion towards homogenization, as increased global competition for markets, jobs and competences, or as unrestrained currency speculation that is undermining the economies and welfare of individual states [1, 65]. Internationalization, on the other hand, is primarily conceived as a developmental strategy that is vitally important for the survival of the individual company or educational institution in the face of global competition. In short: Internationalization is a defense against threatening globalization [3, 44].

Here two discourses are in conflict: The discourse on globalization deals with a (macro-)historical process which - seen from a local perspective - is felt to be menacing and therefore negative, while the discourse on internationalization deals with a developmental strategy which is spoken of in positive terms as something everyone must rally round, almost as a mantra. Internationalization is seen as a task that involves the upgrading of international activities, of the international dimension in teaching, of international experience and intercultural competence - concepts which all have positive connotations [1, 71].

The conflict becomes apparent when the two discourses are linked. Normally, though, they are not linked. In educational contexts not much mention is made of globalization, and when one speaks of globalization in economic or sociological theory, one admittedly also talks about internationalization, but in a different meaning - where internationalization is conceived as a particular instance of globalization [3, 231].

We would claim that the way in which one normally speaks about internationalization is ideological [3,158], since it has the tendency to conceal the fact that internationalization is actually a strategy that supports globalization[84, 163]. Globalization, however, is a highly complex process, some of its dimensions being perceived as negative, others positive. So in the following we intend to give a brief account of how the process of globalization is described in a scientific context, especially within (cultural) sociology [2, 65]. Then we want to return to the discussion about the two discourses and in particular look at what this discussion means for the choice of internationalization strategy and for the content of the concepts linguistic and cultural competence.

Globalization is a concept that has especially become popular since the fall of the Berlin Wall [1, 67]. But the processes with which the term globalization is now connected have been in operation since the beginning of the 15th century in Europe. Robertson distinguishes between five phases in the history of globalization [1, 38]:

1) The Germinal Phase, from the beginning of the 15th century to the mid 18th century;

2) The Incipient Phase, from the mid 18th century to the 1870s - a rapid growth of ideas concerning the homogeneous state and formalized international relations between states. More concrete conceptions of the (state) citizen and that shared by all humanity. International legislation, international cooperation, world exhibitions, the thematisation of the relationship between 'nationalism' and 'internationalism';

3) The Take-off Phase, from the 1870s to the mid 1920s - more and more societal relations become worldwide, e.g. the generalized conception of the 'nation state', more and more non-European societies are incorporated into 'international society', the development of worldwide forms of communication (telephone, telegraph, radio), the holding of the Olympic Games, the awarding of Nobel Prizes, and the First World War;

4) The Struggle for Hegemony Phase, from the mid 1920s to the late 1960s - the struggle between the capitalist and the communist system, the League of Nations, the Second World War, the United Nations, decolonization and the crystallizing of the Third World, the Cold War, the arms race and the space race,

5) The Uncertainty Phase, from the late 1960s to the 1990s - the development of a stronger global awareness. The landing on the moon. End of the Cold War. The number of global institutions and movements increases dramatically. Consolidation of the global media and the world market (WTO). Growing interest in ideas about the world society and global environment. World summit meetings. The international system is no longer bipolar but more fluid - it is not clear what 'the new world order' involves.

This theory includes a wide interdisciplinary conception of globalization as a process that embraces both objective and subjective aspects. The process has to do both with the objective economic, political and social structuralisation and coalescence into ever larger units and with the subjective development of an ever clearer conception of all of humanity and of the single individual as, at one and the same time, state citizen, world citizen and human being in relation to the rest of humanity [3, 40].

Goodwin uses the hybrid term 'glocalisation' to stress the fact that globalisation and localisation are two sides of the same coin [3, 302]. He also talks about the global/local nexus. An example not provided by Goodwin himself is the development of the English language: English can be called the language of globalization: it has spread to large parts of the globe, partly as a national language and/or official language (USA, India, Nigeria, etc.) and partly as a language of international communication. This is a global linguistic process of homogenization [2, 76].

At the same time, English has split up into various regional variants that are becoming increasingly unlike each other. It has been recognized for a long time that Indian English is a special variant. But something similar can also be said about Danish English (as opposed to, e.g., Norwegian English) - it may even be possible to speak of a special Arhus-English as opposed to, e.g. Copenhagen-English [3, 124]. All these local variations are gradually gaining a certain amount of recognition. They are examples of linguistic localization and involve heterogenisation. It has been expressed this way: the world is moving from macromultiplicity to micromultiplicity [1, 9].

Another example of localization as an aspect of globalization is the formation of nation states during the five historical phases mentioned above. It is a point in relation to the general present-day discussion about globalization that the nation states are a product of the globalization process, that they are not something which came before globalization. But the states are gradually acquiring other tasks in connection with the intensification of globalization. It has been said that from the economically liberal camp that the nation states have two main tasks in the new world order [3, 551]: 1) to produce the right sort of people with the right knowledge and experience, so that they can function as raw material for global companies, and 2) to ensure companies an efficient infrastructure in a market that ought to be regulated as little as possible.

In relation to globalization theory, the term internationalization is simply the predecessor of globalization. Goodwin criticizes the term internationalization as being insufficient today, because it only takes account of what goes on between two or more nations, e.g. the European process of integration. For Goodwin, the term globalization is better, because it also can embrace all the over-all, transnational processes that take place completely or partially outside the control of the individual nations, e.g. the development of transnational companies. In that context, internationalization is a subconcept of globalization [2, 221].

So globalization is a unity of the global and the local, a unity of homogenization and heterogenisation. That can make it difficult to adopt a stance towards: which developmental tendencies are positive and which are negative? One's attitude naturally depends on one's standpoint. It is important to strengthen democracy at all levels, so that people have the greatest possible influence on their own lives, including social, cultural and linguistic conditions. At the same time as this must take place, as many people as possible become qualified to adopt an independent, critical and responsible attitude to the world around them, both close to and far away [2, 150].

In the world of linguistics, the term internationalization is thus not used as a particular case of globalization but more as a pragmatically oriented term that involves the existence of a player, a purpose, a strategy and an implementation.

So as not to have the ideological nature mentioned earlier, the arguments for the individual internationalization strategy has to adopt a conscious and differentiated attitude to the various dimensions of globalization: Does one support tendencies towards homogenization, or does one support tendencies towards heterogenisation - and how does one motivate one's choice? And what attitude to world development underlies the choice of internationalization strategy?[3,133]

On the one hand, linguistic competence tends towards a closure around competence in English: it is incredibly common only for English to be included in the picture in connection with deliberations on internationalization [3, 14].

On the other hand, cultural competence tends towards an opening towards all cultural conditions, anywhere at all, and in every conceivable context. A person who has optimal cultural competence is expected to be able to move freely and uncritically everywhere without making any serious blunders. Here, mobility and relativism are given very high priority [3, 25]. But still, there is a need for an ability to reflect ethically and critically about what one experiences and takes part in, so that one does not become a radical relativist.

References:

1. Герман К. Политические перепутья при движении к глобальному информационному обществу// Социс.- 1998.-№2..- С.67-76.

2. Звегинцев В.А. Теоретические аспекты причинности языковых изменений // Новое в лингвистике. Вып. 3. – М.: Изд. иностр. лит., 1963. – С. 125-140.

3. Williams R. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society.- Glasgow: Fontana, 1976.- 386p.