28

The Hegemony of English and Strategies for Linguistic Pluralism

Proposing the Ecology of Language Paradigm

Yukio Tsuda

In this chapter, Yukio Tsuda problematizes the taken-for-granted dominance of the English language in international and intercultural communication. Critical scholars have interrogated inequalities among groups, nations, and cultures in terms of political systems, economic structures, and the production and distribution of cultural contents across countries. However, language is oftentimes assumed as a neutral means of communication and is seldom questioned as a form of domination that sustains the unjust global power relations. Tsuda attributes the hegemony of English to neocolonialism and globalism. At the level of international interpersonal communication, the dominance of English functions to perpetuate the neocolonialist structure and has three serious consequences: (1) linguistic and communicative inequality to the great disadvantage of the speakers of languages other than English; (2) linguistic discrimination and social inequality; and (3) colonization of the consciousness. At the level of international mass communication, the domination of English is encouraged by, and in turn further facilitates, globalism, which obscures three consequences of the current form of globalization on the world culture: (1) Anglo-Americanization, (2) transnationalization, and (3) commercialization of contemporary life. Tsuda advances the Ecology of Language Paradigm as a counterstrategy to the hegemony of English, whose three central tenets are (1) the right to language, (2) equality in communication, and (3) multilingualism and multiculturalism.

One of the most important tasks that scholars ought to perform is to discover questions out of the taken-for-granted knowledge of existing reality. The question I want to raise in this essay concerns the use of English, which is very much taken for granted in international communication today. Speaking from a non-English-speaking perspective, I believe the use of English should not be taken for granted but should be examined as a problem of linguistic hegemony. It is evident that English is the de facto language of international communication today. It is also evident, however, that the dominance of English causes not only linguistic and communicative inequality but also feelings of anxiety and insecurity, especially on the part of non-English-speaking people in a rapidly globalizing world. Thus, there is a need to propose a paradigm to counterattack the hegemony of English so that linguistic and cultural pluralism will be secured.

Here I want to achieve two goals. One is to raise the problem of the hegemony of English by discussing the two aspects: neocolonialism and globalism. The other goal is to discuss what I call the “Ecology of Language Paradigm” as a counterstrategy to the hegemony of English and its implications for international communication and linguistic pluralism. Addressing the problem of linguistic hegemony is crucial to developing human and cultural security.

Dominance of English as Neocolonialism

It is often said that English is the most widely used language for international and intercultural communication. A number of linguists have tracked the global spread of English and have shown that it is the most prevalent language today. Ammon, for example, points out several statistical indicators of the dominance of English. The number of English speakers has grown to 1.5 billion people. English is designated as an official language in as many as 62 nations. English is the most dominant language in scientific communication, being the language of 70–80 percent of academic publications. English is the de facto official and working language in most international organizations. English is the most-taught foreign language around the world (Ammon, 1992, pp. 78–81).

English is indeed the most dominant language and operates as a common medium for international communication. Because it is dominant, however, English is also the “hegemonic” and “neocolonialist” language. It creates both a structure of linguistic and communicative inequality and discrimination between speakers of English and speakers of other languages and a form of indirect rule over many aspects of life.

The use of English has been taken for granted in most international interactions, and it has almost never been called into question. In the English-dominated Western academic community, the use of English has never been perceived as the problematic, as far as I know. Strangely enough, international and intercultural communication studies are quite indifferent to the dominance of English, while sociolinguistics centers on the objective description of the spread of English and thus legitimates the function of English as an international language.

I have been attempting to critically examine the dominance of English as the problematic in international communication (Tsuda, 1986, 1990, 1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1994, 1996). I have found that the dominance of English causes serious consequences, which include: (1) linguistic and communicative inequality to the great disadvantage of the speakers of languages other than English; (2) discrimination against non-English-speaking people and those who are not proficient in English; and (3) colonization of the consciousness of non-English-speakers, causing them to develop linguistic, cultural, and psychological dependency upon, and identification with, English, its culture and people.

Linguistic and Communicative Inequality

In a situation where English dominates communication, the non-English-speaking people are inevitably disadvantaged. They become mute and deaf and are therefore prevented from fully participating in communication. Let us look at an example from international conferences.

Takahashi (1991), a Japanese anthropologist, having observed the proceedings of an international conference where English was the only official language, argues that English-dominated international conferences are bound to serve as an arena for linguistic and communicative discrimination. In his view, native speakers of English take full advantage of the linguistic and communicative inequality to their own benefit. Takahashi reports on his observation as follows:

As Takahashi observed, it seems that native speakers of English in the English-dominated conferences, use their linguistic advantage to magnify their power so that they can establish an unequal and asymmetrical relationship with the non-English-speakers and thus push them out of the mainstream of communication.

There are a great many other examples of linguistic and communicative inequality arising from the dominance of English, but it is sufficient to report one more. W. J. Coughlin (1953), an American journalist, wrote about the mokusatsu mistake that led to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He reported that the Japanese prime minister’s response of Mokusatsu to the Allies’ demand for complete surrender was misinterpreted to mean “reject” the demand, driving American President Harry Truman to decide on the atomic bombing. Mokusatsu actually means both “ignore” and “no comment.”

The point in this historic misunderstanding of a word is that in the English-dominated Japan– U.S. communication, the Americans always have semantic control and the subtle nuances of Japanese semantics are “ignored” or “overlooked.” In other words, in English-dominated communication, English speakers are in a position to control communication to their own advantage.

Linguistic Discrimination and Social Inequality

The dominance of English also creates prejudices and stereotypes that, in turn, create discrimination against those who do not or cannot speak English. For example, those who cannot speak English fluently are labeled incompetent and thus insulted and perceived to be inferior.

Let me present two examples of discrimination as a result of the dominance of English.

The first example comes from a Time magazine article that reports on a Chinese immigrant to the United States. He was confined in a mental institution for 31 years because of “the incomprehensible English” he spoke. The article reports that when the Chinese visited a doctor, he was diagnosed as “abnormal” because of the English he spoke (Time, January 9, 1984).

The second example illustrates discrimination among non-native speakers of English. Kazuo Kojima (1996), a Japanese journalist, wrote an essay about the role of English as a basis of discrimination in Southeast Asia. Being able to speak English is such a source of pride for the people in these countries that some proficient speakers of English are inclined to insult and discriminate against those who cannot speak English. Kojima himself heard an Indian say, “Iraqis are beasts, because they can’t speak English.”

I believe this is a rather extreme case, and most Indians do not hold such a discriminatory attitude. These two examples suggest, however, that the dominance of English is such that the stereotypes and prejudice are easily created and lead to discriminatory perceptions and attitudes toward those who do not and cannot speak English. In other words, English, because of its dominant prestigious status, functions as a basis of discrimination and therefore legitimates and reproduces the perceptions of linguistic prejudice and discrimination.

Discriminatory perceptions and attitudes toward non-English-speakers justify the social hierarchy, which places native speakers of English at the top of the order with non-native speakers of English placed in the middle and the people who do not speak English placed at the bottom. The dominance of English is such that proficiency in the language serves as a criterion by which to classify people.

Thus, native speakers of English reign as a prestigious ruling class of international communication: they can easily express their ideas any time, while non-native speakers and people who do not speaker English constitute the “muted” working class of international communication: they are compelled to learn English and have difficulty expressing their ideas. This is what I call the “Class Structure of International Communication” on the basis of proficiency of English.

Colonization of the Consciousness

The third and ultimate consequence of the dominance of English is what is usually called “colonization of the consciousness,” which refers to the mental control of the colonized by the colonizer. Colonization of the mind occurs as a result of the domination of the colonizer’s language over the language of the colonized. Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o (1981), an African writer famous for his book, Decolonizing the Mind, describes how colonialism takes control of the mind of the colonized.

As Ngũgĩ clearly points out, linguistic domination leads to mental control. This implies that the global dominance of English today is leading to the control of the mind of the global population by speakers of English and their nations and governments. Ngũgĩ also points out that mental control is made possible by a combination of “the destruction or the deliberate undervaluing of a people’s culture” and “the conscious elevation of the language of the colonizer.”

In the face of this mental controlling, the colonized/dominated are usually coerced into complying with the force of mental controlling, which facilitates the execution of the colonization of the mind. In short, the dominated are led to identify with the dominator and glorify the dominator’s language while devaluing their own language and culture. This psychological identification with the dominators and their language is the ultimate result of the colonization of the mind. The process of colonization of the mind, which involves identification, glorification, and devaluing, is clearly reflected in an African sociolinguist’s comment on linguistic imperialism:

The sociolinguist is aware of the mental control that dominated suffers, but most of the dominated unknowingly comply with the force of mental colonization.

Learners of English, as they try to master the language, unknowingly fall prey to the colonization of the mind. The following passage by a Japanese student well exemplifies the mental control of learners of English by English:

What we witness here is not mere linguistic and cultural learning but the transformation of a person’s mind, from a Japanese mind to an English-centered one—the colonization of a person’s mind and the conscious devaluating her own language.

Dominance of English as Globalism

While the dominance of English as neoliberalism occurs at the level of international interpersonal communication, the dominance of English as globalism operates at the level of international mass communication, which involves issues such as cultural and media imperialism, Americanization of global culture, McDonaldization and Dallasization of society, unequal flow of international news and information, dominance of English on the Internet, and so on. In short, the dominance of English operates as a means of promoting globalization. The dominance of English no doubt facilitates globalization. Globalization, in turn, assumes and encourages the use and dominance of English. In other words, the dominance of English is a reflection of the structure of global relations.

Australian applied linguist Alastair Pennycook (1994), for example, points out the interrelationship between the dominance of English and the structure of global relations:

Thus addressing the dominance of English is crucial to understanding the structure of global relations.

According to sociolinguist Roland Robertson, one of the most prominent scholars on globalization, globalization as a concept refers to “the crystallization of the entire world as a single place” (quoted in Arnason, 1990, p. 220) or “the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole” (Robertson, 1992, p. 8).

Globalization in a more concrete sense is taking place primarily in economic domains in which transnational corporations act as agents to conduct business and trade beyond national borders. As a result, we live in a global culture in which our lives are filled with products and information imported from overseas.

Globalism, therefore, is a belief or a form of knowledge that globalization should happen. Globalism accepts globalization as natural, inevitable, and beneficial for all (Pennycook, 1994).

As I mentioned, however, globalization, in fact, causes the Americanization of world culture and McDonaldization of society: it is not a process carefully planned but a mere affirmation of the structure of the unequal global relations in which few center nations dominate over the periphery nations.

Thus globalism justifies globalization as it is occurring today. Globalism prevents us from recognizing the three consequences of globalization: Anglo-Americanization, transnationalization, and commercialization of contemporary life.

Globalization as Anglo-Americanization

The most serious problem caused by globalization is the Anglo-Americanization of the world culture, based on the Anglo-American monopoly of the global information and entertainment market.

Take movies, for example. Of 87 countries surveyed in 1992, as many as 63 countries imported the largest number of movies shown from the United States, and 20 out of 25 European countries showed 60–70 percent American movies. Also in Japan, more than half of the movies shown are imported from the United States (Tsuda, 1996).

It seems that the dominance of American products is evident in the entire international mass communication market: American videos, music, news, magazines, TV programs, and so on, are exported throughout the world. This inevitably results in “ideological control” of the world population, especially by the United States. American ways of feeling and thinking have become very visible and therefore influential as American cultural and information products have been received and welcomed by the whole population of the world.

Thus, Anglo-Americanization and globalization go hand in hand, putting the United States in a position to be able to control, influence, and dominate other countries in terms of values, beliefs, and thought. The dominance of American media products provides the United States with a power to promote and facilitate globalization as well as to spread their values across the world. It also facilitates the global spread of English. The rest of the world is simply bombarded with images, ideas, and values that are not their own. Americanization and globalization thus cause ideological invasions of countries throughout the world and interfere with cultural and political self-determination of most of the countries.

Globalization as Transnationalization

The most striking characteristic of globalization is its transnationalizing force. Due to rapid developments in telecommunication technologies, and networks such as communication satellites, personal computers, and the Internet, most messages and information are disseminated on a global scale, easily going beyond national borders. These transnational messages are so powerful that the image from the West is believed to have influenced the people of East Germany and caused the collapse of the Berlin Wall. This leads us to believe that whoever controls the channels and media of transnational telecommunication can control global relations. Rather, I would say the present system of transnational telecommunication, which is heavily dominated by the advanced Western capitalist countries, is merely a reflection of the unequal power structure between the center countries and the periphery countries.

Although there was an urgent demand for a more nearly equal flow of international information, as demonstrated in the UNESCO attempt to establish a “New World Information and Communication Order” started in the 1970s, such a call from the non-Western nations has been mostly ignored by the United States and the United Kingdom as they withdrew from UNESCO in the middle of the 1980s.

The introduction of the “Information Super highway” by the United States and the global spread of the Internet in the 1990s resulted in loss of interest in the issues of imbalance and inequality in the flow of international information. Above all, the dominance of English on the Internet and in international information is not merely creating inequality in communication and homogenization of culture but is also affirming and reinforcing the structure of inequality between English and other languages.

Thus the transnationalizing aspect of globalization does not contribute to the establishment of a more nearly equal international communication. Rather, globalization consolidates the power structure of global relations in which the advanced capitalist countries such as the United States dominate all the rest.

Globalization as Commercialization

Today for the English-speaking countries English is the best commodity that can be exported throughout the world. English is the best-selling product every year. This means that the English-speaking countries have more linguistic capital than countries of other languages. Because English is the most widely used and taught language, it is accepted easily in almost any place in the world. Because of this great communicability and acceptability, English-language related products ranging from movies, videos, and compact discs to jeans, T-shirts, discos, and so on are exported and consumed all over the world. One of the problems with this globalization of English products is that it creates “cultural domination” by the United States as well as by transnational corporations over the non-Western countries and the Third World. Herbert Schiller, an American critical scholar, characterizes the global spread of cultural domination as “transnational corporate cultural domination” (Schiller, 1991) which causes the commercialization of our life:

Schiller thus points out that American and transnational corporations’ cultural domination spreads in all the spheres of our daily lives, commercializing all our physical and mental spaces.

American cultural products such as Disneyland, rock and roll, McDonald’s, and so forth appeal to and satisfy the libido of the people, thus transforming them into mere consumers of these products who willingly continue to purchase them without really knowing that they are trapped in a cycle of consumption. Once trapped in the cycle, people accept it as inevitable and thus become happily enslaved to consuming English products.

Globalization of English products thus not only gives rise to “cultural domination” of the United States and transnational corporations but also causes commercialization of all spheres of life. We become consumers willing to purchase English products, unknowingly helping to reproduce the structure of cultural domination and commercialization of life.

The Ecology of Language as Counterstrategy of the Hegemony of English

We have seen in the above discussions that the hegemony of English creates and reproduces inequality, discrimination, and colonization of the mind as well as Americanization, transnationalization, and commercialization of contemporary life. In order to solve these problems and realize equal and emancipatory communication, the Ecology of Language Paradigm is very much needed as a theory of resisting the hegemony of English. The Ecology of Language Paradigm serves as a theory or perspective for promoting a more nearly equal language and communication policy of world.

I first talked about the Ecology of Language Paradigm in 1993 in Honolulu at the East-West Center’s Internationalization Forum. The two paradigms are as follows:

Thus the Diffusion of English Paradigm, or what I call the Hegemony of English Paradigm, evidently serves Western capitalism and civilization, while the Ecology of Language Paradigm is critical to the underlying philosophy of Western civilization, which advances modernization.

For example, the philosophy of language is the Hegemony of English Paradigm is basically functionalism in that it sees language as a mere tool or instrument for communication and fails to understand that it is an essential component of culture and identity. Thus the Hegemony of English Paradigm disconnects language from culture and the people using it.

On the other hand, the Ecology of Language Paradigm assumes that language is culture and is a source of personal identity. Moreover, in the Ecology of Language Paradigm language is a precious environment that creates us and our culture. Language is not a mere instrument but is an environment that influences and shapes us.

Also, the Ecology of Language Paradigm holds that language is people and people are language. Therefore, inequality among languages means inequality among people. The death of one language is the death of its speakers.

Based on these views of language, the Ecology of Language Paradigm advocates: (1) the right to language; (2) equality in communication; and (3) multilingualism and multiculturalism. By advocating these goals, the Ecology of Language Paradigm attempts to promote linguistic and cultural security for the non-English-speaking people. Let us look at each of them.

The Right to Language

The Ecology of Language Paradigm regards “the right to language” as an essential right for every person. The “right to language” primarily refers to an individual’s right and freedom to use a language of his or her choice in any circumstances. It therefore assumes an individual’s right and freedom not to use a language that is not his or her choice but is imposed.

The central concept of “the right to language” resides in the use and recognition of an individual’s “mother tongues.” Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and Robert Phillipson, authors of Linguistic Human Rights, define “linguistic human rights” and “mother tongues” as follows:

Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson emphasize two factors in their definition. One is “identification with an individual’s mother tongues.” They believe that emotional attachment to one’s mother tongues should be recognized as a part of “the right to language.” Second, they emphasize social participation and integration. They recognize language as a channel that enables people to participate and integrate into society. They recognize access to an official language as a part of linguistic human rights.

Therefore, we can provisionally say that “the right to language” involves an individual’s right to use, learn, and identify with a language of his or her choice including his or her mother tongues and official languages of the country in which he or she lives.

Equality in Communication

The prerequisite for equality in international communication is equality among languages. If a speaker of language A and a speaker of language B communication by speaking either one of the two languages, inequality in communication occurs.

One of the most influential factors justifying the use of English in international communication is the taken-for-granted assumption that English should be used. English-speaking people unconsciously believe English to be used by all people; that it, they unconsciously have a linguistic imperialist consciousness. Meanwhile, non-English speaking people assume that the use of English is inevitable, indicating the colonization of the mind on their part. A consciousness revolution is thus needed to alleviate imperialistic consciousness as well as colonization of the mind.

One practical approach to establishing equality in international communication is “linguistic localism,” or the use of local languages by all participants in communication. For example, when an international conference meets in France, every participant speaks French; if a conference is held in Japan, Japanese should be used. By practicing linguistic localism we can develop an inter-cultural awareness of sharing the burden of using and learning foreign languages. Effective use of translators and interpreters is also encouraged to promote equal use of languages.

Use of a third language, or what I call “neutralingual communication,” is another approach. When an American and a Chinese communicate in a third language, such as French Russian, or Malay, they engage in linguistically equal communication in comparison with communication in English, which favors the American one-sidedly.

Another strategy for promoting equality in communication equalizing the linguistic handicaps of the participants in communication. For example, if each one of us speaks a foreign language or a planned, constructed language such as Esperanto, we will be able to establish equality in our linguistic handicaps, which will lead to equality in communication.

The primary reason for emphasizing equality in communication is that it will establish “symmetry” among people, enabling them to exchange ideas without much constraint, as German social theorist Jürgen Habermas (1970) points out when he talks about “the ideal speech situation”:

Of all the symmetries, linguistic symmetry is the most important for realizing equality in communication and “the ideal speech situation.”

Multilingualism and Multiculturalism

Multilingualism and multiculturalism can also be called “linguistic and cultural pluralism,” suggesting a critical theoretical position against monolingualism and monoculturalism, which aim at one language and one culture in a society.

The history of modernization was a process of building monolingual and monocultural societies, as the standard languages were developed for efficient communication at the expense of innumerable local languages and dialects. As a result, linguistic hierarchization emerged, and it caused social stratification and inequality as well as discrimination. Globalization as it is occurring today is bringing about a new “global class society” in which English and Anglo-American culture dominate as a “global ruling class.”

Linguistic and cultural pluralism is counterstrategy against the force of monolingualism and monoculturalism. It opposes monolithic singularism because diversity is the most important index of a truly democratic society. Pluralism is a philosophy of tolerance and conviviality that pursues a harmonious coexistence of different cultures, languages, and people. Pluralism also pays most attention to minorities, the dominated, and the disadvantaged, as it believes that these people should be given equal opportunities.

Thus, linguistic and cultural pluralism not only criticizes monolingualism and monoculturalism but also serves an important indicator of whether a certain society is truly democratic or not. The philosophy of pluralism is very necessary if we really wish to realize the democratization of international communication.

Implication of the Ecology of Language Paradigm

The ideas and goals advocated by the Ecology of Language Paradigm should be incorporated into the theories and practices of international communication, especially for the purpose of democratizing it. Let me summarize some of the implications of the Ecology of Language Paradigm for the betterment of international communication today.

1. The Ecology of Language provides a critical perspective for the present English-dominated international communication and raises consciousness about issues such as the right to language and equality in communication.
2. The Ecology of Language serves non-English-speaking people by providing a theoretical base for building strategies to fight the hegemony of English and promote their cultural security and empowerment. In other words, it serves as a strategy for creating a balance of cultural and linguistic power between English and other languages.
3. The Ecology of Language provides a theoretical foundation for the development of a global language policy, especially from the position of promoting multilingualism and multiculturalism.
4. The Ecology of Language serves English-speaking people by providing them with a critical awareness and knowledge with regard to the dominance of English, raising the consciousness about equality in communication, the right to language, and linguistic and cultural pluralism.

The Ecology of Language Paradigm is not without faults and weakness. Perhaps linguistic and cultural isolationism is one likely pitfall. If multilingualism, for example, is pursued to the extreme at the expense of everything else, the speakers of minority languages might be confined in their languages and thus unable to communicate with the world outside of their linguistic and cultural boundaries. In order to prevent linguistic and cultural isolation, we should recognize “ecology-conscious” ideas such as “communitarian globalism” and “liberal localism” developed by Majid Tehranian (1993) and integrate them into the Ecology of Language Paradigm.

Conclusion

Whenever I criticize the hegemony of English, I am asked the same question: “I understand what you are talking about. But look, English is the lingua franca today. How can we communicate without it?” I am not denying the use and learning of English. Rather, what I am challenging is the very knowledge or consciousness that makes it possible for people to ask such a question: the knowledge that takes for granted the existing reality, accepts it as natural, inevitable, and even beneficial; the knowledge that refuses to envision the alternative. We need to examine the existing reality and then try to fill the gap between the status quo and the ideal by exploring the problems and providing solutions to them.

In conclusion, I would like to make three suggestions. The first one is directed to scholars of international and intercultural communication. That is, I suggest that the hegemony of English should become the subject of academic inquiry in the area of international and intercultural communication, especially in the English-speaking countries. The second suggestion is directed to English-language teaching professionals. I suggest that the English-Language education should incorporate the Ecology of Language Paradigm into the contents and methods of teaching as well as teacher education. The last suggestion goes to all speakers of English. I suggest that both native speakers and non-native speakers of English learn the philosophy of the Ecology of Language so that they will become more sensitive to the ethical aspects of international communication.

References

Ammon, U. (1992). Gengo-to sono chii. (Y. Hieda & H. Yamashita, Trans.). Tokyo: Sangensha.

Arnason, J. P. (1990). Nationalism, globalization and modernity. In M. Featherstone (Ed.), Global culture (pp. 207–236). London: Sage.

Coughlin, W. J. (1953). The great mokusatsu mistake: Was this the deadliest error of our time? Harper’s Magazine, 206(1234), 31–40.

Habermas, J. (1970). Towards a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry, 13, 360–375.

Kojima, K. (1996, January 9). Eigoken-no kuni-ga harau daishou. Mainichi Shimbun.

Ngũgĩ, T. (1981). Decolonizing the mind: The politics of language in African literature. London: James Currey.

Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. London: Oxford University Press.

Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. London: Sage.

Schiller, H. (1989). Disney, Dallas and electronic data flows: The transnationalization of culture. In C. W. Thomsen (Ed.), Cultural transfer or electronic imperialism? (pp. 33–43). Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitatverlag.

Schiller, H. (1991). Not yet the Post-Imperialism Era? Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 8, 13–28.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Phillipson, R. (Eds.). (1995). Linguistic human rights: Overcoming linguistic discrimination. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Takahashi, J. (1991). Kokusai kaigi-ni miru Nihonjin-no ibunka koushou. In J. Takahashi et al., (Eds.), Ibunka-eno sutoratejii (pp. 181–201). Tokyo: Kawashima Shoten.

Tehranian, M. (1993). Ethnic discourse and the new world dysorder: A communitarian perspective. In C. Roach (Ed.), Communication and culture in war and peace (pp. 192–215). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Tsuda, Y. (1986). Language inequality and distortion in intercultural communication: A critical theory approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Tsuda, Y. (1990). Eigo shihai-no kouzou [The structure of the dominance of English]. Tokyo: Daisan Shokan.

Tsuda, Y. (1992). The dominance of English and linguistic discrimination. Media Development, 39(1), 32–34.

Tsuda, Y. (Ed.). (1993a). Eigo shihai-eno iron [Objections to the dominance of English]. Tokyo: Daisan Shokan.

Tsuda, Y. (1993b). Communication in English: Is it anti-cultural? Journal of Development Communication, 4(1), 68–78.

Tsuda, Y. (1994). The diffusion of English: Its impact on culture and communication. Keio Communication Review, 16, 48–61.

Tsuda, Y. (1996). Shinryaku-suru Eigo, hangeki-suru Nihongo [The invading English, the counterattacking Japanese]. Tokyo: PHP.