Language hegemony revisited: insights from the francophone world
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to contribute to the debate about language hegemony in international business (IB) and management studies by inviting scholars to extend their inquiries into megalanguages other than English. Decentering from English may allow for more pluriversal research (meaning open to pluralism, resisting universalism and a binary view of the world). Discussing the case of French as another hegemonic language, the paper highlights the necessity of varying the focal language under investigation. Design/methodology/approach The paper sketches a portrait of language hegemony’s main features (domination, exclusion, alienation) and counterhegemonic strategies in business and academia. It confirms the English-centric nature of extant research. A deconstructive analysis of French as an example of another hegemonic language follows. The paper presents the Francophonie as a relevant setting to study language dynamics in IB and management studies and suggests questions worthy of exploration in future research. Findings The literature often overlooks other megalanguages and phenomena outside the English language’s sphere of influence. It displays a prevalent focus on English as well as on issues pertaining mostly to Englishization. Analyzing the hegemonic features of French, however, sheds light on power relations shaped by the specific colonial experiences and historical legacies within the Francophonie. The latter represents an additional valuable setting for examining language hegemony, as French enterprises and business schools have a highly significant presence in postcolonial settings. Exploring megalanguages other than English, can help understand the complexity of language dynamics in business and in academia. Originality/value The paper substantiates the multifaceted nature of language hegemony by broadening the discussion beyond the English/non-English divide.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".