Cosmopolitanism and Global English: Language Politics in Globalisation Debates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While it is commonly agreed that language standardisation was an integral feature of the historical formation of the modern nation state, current debates on globalisation and its effects on the nation state rarely address language issues in more than a superficial fashion. Yet the quadrupling of the number of English speakers in the last half-century and other changes associated with ‘global English’ would seem to have more substantial political implications. Particularly in the recent wave of discussions of cosmopolitanism, language questions seem to lurk below the surface but are rarely addressed explicitly or comprehensively. Important exceptions to this neglect of current language issues include Daniele Archibugi, who addresses these questions head on, and Nancy Fraser's most recent attempt to rethink Habermas' critical theory of the public sphere. This article agrees with both Archibugi and Fraser that language is an important, even central, aspect of political responses to processes of globalisation, specifically cosmopolitanism. However, I argue that Antonio Gramsci's approach to the politics of language in the early twentieth century highlights the insufficiency of Archibugi's reliance on the metaphor of Esperanto as well as the intractable nature of Fraser's critique for any critical theory of global public sphere(s), despite her attempt to advance such a theory. I do this by looking at Gramsci's critique of Esperanto from 1918 and his later prison writings concerning language politics in Italy. Gramsci, I argue, provides a much more adequate approach to contemporary questions of the politics of language, which includes an understanding of the continued role of the state which is most often obscured both by cosmopolitan perspectives and by much research on global English in fields outside political science.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".