LINGUISTIC DIMENSION OF GLOBAL POLITICS: HISPANOPHONE

Citation preview

Golden Mile GERMANY

Natalia Kovalevskaia

Linguistic Dimension of Global Politics:

Hispanophone

BERLIN · 2013

Reviewed by:

Y.N. Gladky, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Geography O.L. Tserpinskaya, Doctor of Political Sciences

Academic Editor: V.S. Yagya, Honorary Academician of the Russian Federation, Honorary Professor of Saint Petersburg State University, Professor, Doctor of History

Published with support from the corporate group Club ROM (Russian Orthodox Maecenas), Bossner and CLAN Magazine.

Natalia Vladimirovna Kovalevskaia

Linguistic Dimension of Global Politics: Hispanophone This book contains an analysis of the current issues regarding the relationship of language and society in the context of global politics. In the academic sense, the linguistic dimension of global politics is a new line of research that focuses on a range of international relations, which form a unique lingua-political, lingua-economic and lingua-cultural infrastructure of the modern world in the era of globalization. In the author’s opinion, the experience of Hispanophone in this context provides the most relevant example. For various specialists in international politics and international relations, students, undergraduates and graduate students of universities and other academic institutions, as well as for anyone who is interested in the contemporary development of the global community.

© N.V. Kovalevskaia, 2013

Publisher's note I have to admit that when the draft of this manuscript landed on my desk, as an international publisher, I had my doubts about the significance of this research not only for the experts, but also for a wide range of readers. However, after reading it, I realized that the questions addressed by the author had been concerning me for a long time. Such topics as the interdependence of languages and the global community, changes within the cultural and linguistic dimension in the time of globalization and lingua-economics have become remarkably relevant for international businesses, amongst others the diversified Golden Mile GmbH group, which took on the responsibility for publishing this book. Despite the fact that I disagree with certain conclusions that Natalia Kovalevskaia draws throughout her research, I must point out that “thought thrives on conflict”. These “conflicts of opinions” have helped me recognize the vital importance of supporting the development of the Russian language and culture. Several years ago, I founded a Children’s Theater Studio in Berlin. Its main purpose is to promote the study of Russian language and culture among the Russian-speaking children. The experience of raising three children in Germany and twenty years of successful business in this country have proven to me how difficult it is for the Russian families to preserve their culture and language abroad. I am convinced that Russian-speaking businesses should bear the responsibility of promoting Russian cultural and linguistic values outside Russia. Dear reader! One can say a lot about this book, make it a subject for a debate or listen to someone’s conclusions, yet forming your own opinion is the best way to go. Therefore, I sincerely hope that this book’s message has at least the same impact on your life as it has had on mine.

Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Golden Mile GmbH Group Baron Konstantin von Bossner

3

Introduction The relevance of the following research is determined by the increasing value of the linguistic factor in global politics. Various global events, international relations, activity of international governmental and nongovernmental organizations, interaction and intertwining of diverse global political actors, national relations and contradictions, regional conflicts and their settlement or, on the contrary, their escalation are rather dependent upon the nature of cross-language relations and the institutionalization of unification processes for countries and peoples who share the same language and use it to establish global, regional or national language policies. Many global events implement the ideas of monoculturalism, multilingualism, linguistic genocide, lingua-political misbalance of public forces, national interests related to its language and its role in the world, as well as the presence or absence of lingua-political tension in multilingual countries. The aforementioned implies that the linguistic factor is multidimensional. It represents a set of processes formed by the language itself, its status, its role in the world, the region and the country, the developmental principles of the national and global language policy, its actual results, linguistic integration and disintegration trends, language as the foreign policy tool, language variety, language cooperation, globalization and disappearance of languages, lingua-political organizations and their activity, linguistic foundations of political, territorial or administrative state mechanisms, language rights, linguistic rivalry and other linguistic landmarks of social development, e.g. education. The global phenomenon of linguaphone (Francophone, Hispanophone, Lusophone, Finno-Ugric sphere and others) has to be pointed out as a component of the linguistic factor influencing global politics. Linguaphone is a linguistic, geographical, human, social, political and institutional space for state and non-governmental activities. Linguaphone is defined within the two following aspects: all countries and groups of people speaking a particular language and various institutions or organizations that co-ordinate, regulate and defend the interests of these countries and groups of people in the global community. Thus, linguaphone is the major structural component of the linguistic dimension

5

of global politics. At the same time, its institutions are an integral part of the transnational environment within global politics. Hispanophone plays one of the most significant roles among all linguaphones that match the aforementioned criteria. Hispanophone possesses appreciable political weight in the world and has substantial influence on global politics. Its global political potential is significant, yet not fully implemented. In the near future the Spanish language is likely to narrow the political and intellectual field of the English language in the USA to a great extent. The role of Latin America in global politics will further increase due to its growing political and economic power. Consequentially, Hispanophone will receive new stimulus for the development and influence of international relations in the context of globalization, and the formation of the 21st century world order. Hispanophone will then take an even more active part in setting the conditions and landmarks for the world order of the 22nd century. Hispanophone is integrally intertwined in the formation of the multipolar world, in the evolution of global political spaces and in the transformation of the cultural (in the broad meaning) image of the Spanishspeaking world. All these circumstances convincingly indicate the importance of academic research of Hispanophone in the context of global politics. This research gains even more relevance considering the fact that Latin America, and especially Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina and Colombia became powerful figures in the global political arena by the end of the 20th century. Although these countries are in different stages of development, both ideologically and practically, they are related through language, geography and history. When reflecting upon his conversations with the king of Spain in March 2009 in Madrid, the president of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev noted that “meetings of such level would support cooperation between Russia and the Spanish-speaking world”1. This fact once again underlines that independent of the contradictions between Spain and the Latin American countries, intercontinental political solidarity with language in the center point remains invariable in most cases. However, there still exist significant difficulties in studying the interaction, interference and intertwining of Hispanophone and global politics. The questions addressed in the monograph have been insufficiently studied and theoretically not interpreted until present. Many of them have not been researched at all. Furthermore, certain fundamental problems remain debatable. There are no comprehensive, competent and detailed monographic works that address Hispanophone in the context of global political processes, and the science that some academics propose to name

6

“glottopolitics2. There has been no large-scale theoretical work in the field of the linguistic dimension of global politics that could substantiate conceptual ideas and state the academic foundations in this line of research. The only exception is I.V. Chernov's summary that points out the influence of language on global politics3. In the context of the linguistic dimension, the author of this monograph addresses Francophone and its political institute The International Organization of La Francophonie that was founded in order to unite the French-speaking countries and peoples, guided by the French culture, French humanistic values and the French perspective of the world in the context of global politics and mutual influence. Unfortunately, the Hispanophonic component of global politics is poorly studied at present. Only certain aspects of it are being researched by a variety of scholars (T.L. Kalentyeva, S.M. Istman, O.A. Kornilov, A.A. Leontyev, O.A. Leontovich, M. Lepretre, A.Y. Musorin, L.M. Muharyamova, I.M. Tatarovskaya, N.N. Troshina, M. Fettes and A. Fill)4, mainly from the perspective of sociolinguistics, ecolinguistics and other linguistic disciplines. At the same time one should agree with the statement that “linguistics moves towards the study of international relations through the development of sociolinguistics and other interdisciplinary areas”. However, it will be more precise to speak about sociolinguistics moving parallel to the study of global politics or at the very least, towards the current state of international relations and global politics5. It is necessary to take into consideration the viewpoint of foreign researchers Birgit Donker, S. Baker, S. Johns and G. Lakoff6 that language is politics. Therefore, its increasing role in global politics possesses high potential. An example of an academic article with no global political approach towards Hispanophone is M.S. Puig's “Spanish language and languages of Spain”7. Worth mentioning is the statement of a famous Latin American author Carlos Fuentes that, “having laid aside nonsenses and stories of genocide, it has to be admitted that Spain has given us our treasure: the Spanish language”8. Juan Carlos, the king of Spain replied: “I believe that we have given something even more important: our blood. Unlike Anglo-Saxons, Spaniards have mixed their blood with the blood of all Latin American nations”9. His point of view echoes with the formula of civilization, based on the “language and culture” principle. The research results of Russian and Spanish scholars V.M. Davydov, B.Y. Subichus, Y.G. Shemyakin, V.Y. Yakovets, Numberto Morales, V. Pérez-Díaz, and Isidro Sepúlveda10 draw us to the conclusion that the borders of human civilizations follow language and lifestyle “habitats”. Back in 1999 V.S. Yagya11 stated in his course of lectures on “Geography and Global Politics” that the future world order will consist of interacting and intertwining

7

worlds. These worlds were conventionally named the Russian world, including all countries where Russian is widely used, the Euro-Atlantic world with the prevalence of the English language, the Ibero-American world with the dominating Spanish language, the Chinese world, the Arab world, the Japanese world and others. According to V.S. Yagya, they will primarily arise from the language communities in the context of integration processes, where linguistic geography will coincide with culture, which includes language. Similarly, S. Huntington uses a geolinguistic approach and states that “the global language propagation has always reflected the spread of authority in the world throughout history”12. Despite the polystructural and multi-actoral nature of global politics, states will long remain its main driving forces, figurants, players, participants or, using the more common term, actors. This, however, should not lower the status of other actors in global politics (transnational corporations, non-governmental organizations, etc.) Language ranks high in the activities of the states and other figurants in the global arena. Relations established by native speakers intertwine with global political processes and make the universal political environment more complex. It is not coincidental that S. Huntington, O.A. Leontovich, A.Y. Musorin and H.M. Blekua13 define language as one of the main elements of any civilization. S. Huntington's monograph “Who are we? The Challenges to America's National Identity”14 helps cover the topic of the present research. One of its chapters addresses the same subjects as in this thesis, but just applicable to the USA. However, the title of this chapter already speaks for itself: “Mexican immigration and Hispanicization”. This American scholar makes three indicative conclusions regarding the situation in the USA after an immigration wave from Mexico and other Latin American countries: 1. The USA underwent certain changes at the end of the twentieth century that have potential, if not stopped, to split America into an English-Spanish society with two official languages. 2. Mexican immigration leads to demographic “Reconquista” of the areas captured by the United States in the 1830-1840s. 3. “Mexicanization, including immigration from other Latin American countries, causes the spread of the Spanish language and the formation of typical Hispanic social, cultural and linguistic practices in the USA. Finally, Huntington does not even exclude the linguistic collapse of the USA (Graham Fuller, Robert Kaplan, Morris Janowitz particularly address this problem in their works)15. Other Russian and foreign scholars who cover these topics in their writings are V.M. Davydov, N.F. Mikheyeva, V.P. Narumov, V.L. Hayt, Y.G. Shemyakin, M. Blanco and V.Pérez-Díaz16. M.S. Puig's aforementioned article17 does not approach Hispanophone from the global political perspective, yet plays an important role in the

8

understanding of the linguistic situation. The opinions on the constitutional position of the official languages in Spain (Spanish - official language, Catalan - regional language in the autonomous community Catalonia, Galician language in Galicia, and Basque language in the Basque communities) are accurately traced in the article. Puig also distinguishes the challenges of the cross-language relations that have developed in Spain. In fact, we consider that the bilingualism in the Spanish autonomies, primarily in the Basque Communities and Catalonia, where the regional languages are clearly dominant, must hinder the expansion of the political and cultural propagation of the Spanish language. Apparently, the same principles apply in Bolivian schools where obligatory American Indian language courses have been introduced. The actual situation here depends on the authorities and their success in achieving cross-language political cooperation and the balance of the lingua-political interests of political forces inside and outside the country. N.E. Gronskaya, K. Korolev, A. Chervontsev, I.V. Chernov, D. Crystal, R. Morin, R. Phillipson, D. Rothkopf and A. Watson address the problem of language propagation and status18. The role of aforementioned article by Dário Moreira de Castro Alves is also very significant. Even though its subject is Lusophone, it can be useful in the perspective of the lingua-political cooperation between Romance countries in counteraction to English as a global language that dismisses all other languages from the “global language club“. The editorial article in the “Label France” magazine suggests a slightly different interpretation of the integration process among various lingua-political movements. “Francophone should assist in developing a society based on the polar balance and diversity of authority and academic thought. The execution of this task has to include other large cultural formations that unite all Spanish-, Arabic-, Portuguese- and (why not) English-speaking peoples”. This unification implies open-mindedness towards other cultures, instead of a culture wrapped in itself. It is not a question of erecting walls around the besieged fortress, but taking part in the building of the future”19. The aforementioned statement leads to I.V. Chernova's conclusion that “the hypothetical formation of the “civilization block” directed against the Anglo-Saxon domination in world politics can hardly occur in the foreseeable future while taking into consideration the opposite interests of the participants”20. It is important to mention that the author pays great attention to various theoretical aspects of the formation of the transnational environment in global politics in general. These aspects are covered in the writings of M.M. Lebedeva, A.Y. Melvil, N.I. Marchuk, E.B. Pavlova, I.L. Prohorenko and M. Ortega21.

9

Theoretical, academic and practical studies of the language situation in various countries conducted by V.M. Alpatov, I.G. Ilishev, K. Korolev, A.M. Molodkin, V.P. Nevroznak, N. Chomsky, F. Dominges, J. Fishman and N.L. Morales22 were used for the analysis of the close relationship between Hispanophone and global politics. Various interpretations of linguistic environment in the works of L.A. Garcia, S. Mar-Molinero, J. Peak, Ruis Himenes and U. Pedroso23 provide a deeper understanding of the Spanishspeaking world, the language relations within it and the influence of the Spanish language and the whole multistructural Hispanophone on global politics. The works of S.K. Arredondo, H.M. Blekua, H.H. Echevarria, L.A. Garcia, N.L. Morales and J. Peak24 provide a substantial value for researching complex questions regarding territorial and global political aspects of Hispanophone. It must be noted that extensive linguistic and sociolinguistic research of language related situations in Russia started as early as the 1960-70s. The book “Sociolinguistic Problems of the Developing Countries”25 has to be mentioned at this point, since it contains interesting articles regarding the national-linguistic activity in Cambodia, India, West Africa, Uganda, Afghanistan and other Afro-Asian countries. V.G. Kostomarov's article on “global language” published in this book is also of academic interest. According to Kostomarov, “the extralinguistic aspect of the global language formation processes is closely connected with political, economic and cultural factors of social development”26. One can only agree with his theory that the concept of the “global language” is based on a variety of diverse, yet interacting indicators. A distinctive role is given to the geographical language propagation both inside and outside the national territory27. The works of V.S. Yagya28 deal with various theoretical questions regarding the interrelation of language and society in the context of global politics. The academic conference “Language and globalization” (St.-Petersburg, May 20, 2008) has made a significant contribution to the development of the linguistic dimension of global politics. Lord Alan Watson29 and Professor K.K. Hudoley30 have played important roles in the conference and in the summarization of the outcomes. The linguaphonic characteristics of international relations developed by the forum participants and revealed during this scientific forum for the first time, have promoted the author's deeper understanding of the experience, the mission and the future of international lingua-political organizations and their role in global politics. The theoretical aspects of the functioning of international governmental and non-governmental organizations are also presented in the works of G.A. Drobot, E.G. Ermolyeva, M. Lepretre, A.M. Majlof, Puch Pao, G. Aretio, A. Pozo, and M. Vallejo31. It is important

10

to mention that these fundamental works do not address the subject of the linguistic dimension of global politics. This fact has once again supported the relevance of this thesis. The inclusion of linguaphonic movements in the general theory of global politics will undoubtedly enrich its conceptual foundations, promote the academically informed opinion on the subject of global politics and will complement the open debate regarding the correlation between the theory of international relations and global politics. In this respect, the work of O.N. Baranov, V.A. Golitsyn, and V.V. Tereshchenko32 on global management as today's major global political problem is rather valuable. The conceptual ideas of this monograph contradict M.L. Lagutina's point of view that global politics is the new tool of global management33. The works on globalization, especially in the aspect of the transformation of political space of world languages, including Spanish, were of great help when studying Hispanophone. These are the writings of A.D. Bogaturov, A.M. Vasilyev, I. Wallerstein, N.P. Ivanov, B.Y. Katarlitsky, V.M. Kulagin, T.T. Timofeev, U. Bledso, and J.E. Stiglitz34. They contain different aspects of political globalization. The universal nature of global politics is also conveyed in the writings of Z. Brzeziński, S.M. Ivanov, M.M. Lebedeva, E.M. Primakov, A.I. Utkin and others35. In the academic perspective, articles published by my colleagues in the annual periodical “Relevant problems of global politics in the 21st century”, edited by V.S. Yagya36 were of great help. Special attention should be drawn to V.S. Yagya's theories on the non-governmental foundation “Russkiy Mir”, Hispanophone, Francophone, other global lingua-political movements and their evaluation, namely: “it is a human layer of foreign policies represented by a variety of countries that make a substantial effort to promote territorial, culturological and generally human propagation of their language”37. His conclusion is likewise significant. “The national language is a powerful tool that promotes national interests abroad”38. The Spanish authors who study Hispanophone and its proliferation around the world should also be mentioned in the given context. The author widely used library resources and the works of the Cervantes Institute in Madrid and its branch in Moscow. The information received at this Institute39 promoted a more thorough understanding and expanded the author's perception of the thesis topics. Equally helpful were numerous conversations with the former head of the International English Speaking Union Lord Watson40, Honorary Professor at the faculty of International Relations, Saint Petersburg State University, and a short conversation with S. Berlusconi, Prime Minister of Italy, in Rome on February 3, 2009 about the political role of the Italian language.

11

The analysis of Russian and foreign literature has shown insufficient or non-existing information regarding the linguaphonic trends and their connection with global politics. This fact demonstrations that a researcher of the linguistic dimension of global politics faces considerable challenges related to scientific perception, theoretical formatting of the given research area, understanding particularities, characteristic features, valuable landmarks and the development options of global politics in the linguaphonic context. We had also used publications in the following periodicals: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Kommersant, Foreign Affairs, NRC Handelsblad, The Economist, International Herald Tribune, El Pais, etc41. The informational background for this research is based on a wide range of statistical data, official documents and resolutions of various governmental institutions. During research the author has also used the information base containing data related to the developmental dynamics of the lingua-political map of the world, provided by the International Council of the English Speaking Union and the Cervantes Institute.

Medvedeva vstretili po-korolevski// Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti. 3.03.2009. Dariu Mureyra de Kashtru Alvesh. Luzofoniya i sodruzhestvo stran portugal'skogo yazyka// Reshenie natsional'no-yazykovykh voprosov v sovremennom mire/ Pod red. Akad. E.P. Chelysheva. – M. – SPb: Zlatoust, 2003. – pp. 276-290; Mukharyamova L. M. Yazyk i politika v kontekste globalizatsii// «Obshchestvo i politika» - http://globkazan.narod. ru/2003/a17.html; Gronskaya N.E. Virtual'noe prostranstvo yazykovoy politiki: konfliktnost' lingvisticheskogo sushchestvovaniya// Polis 2004, № 5. – pp. 61-64. 3 Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. 4 Istman S.M. Natsional'nye yazyki. Kratkaya entsiklopediya lingvistiki v sfere obrazovaniya. Pergamon, 1999.; Kalent'eva T.L. Etnopsikholingvisticheskie issledovaniya yazykovogo soznaniya i obraza mira/Yazykovoe soznanie i obraz mira. Vestnik IGLU/ Otv. red T.L. Kalent'eva. – Irkutsk: IGLU, 2004. № 8; Kornilov O.A. Yazykovye kartiny mira kak proizvodnye natsional'nykh mentalitetov. 2-e izdanie, ispr. i dop. – M.: CheRo, 2003; Leont'ev A. A. Osnovy psikholingvistiki.- M.: Smysl,1997; Leontovich O.A. Paradoksy mezhkul'turnogo obshcheniya// Yazykovaya lichnost': aspekty lingvistiki i lingvodidaktiki. – Volgograd, 1999; Lepretre M. Yazykovoe planirovanie i ispol'zovanie yazyka v Katalonii/ Deyatel'nost' mezhdunarodnykh organizatsiy i evropeyskiy opyt v oblasti sokhraneniya yazykov etnicheskikh men'shinstv: Materialy mezhdunarodnogo seminara. Elista: APP «Dzhangar», 2000; Musorin A.Yu. Osnovy nauki o yazyke – Novosibirsk: Novosibirskoe 1 2

12

knizhnoe izdatel'stvo, 2004; Mukharyamova L.M. Yazykovoy marketing: napravlenie strategii planirovaniya.http//www.rags.ru/akadem/gos_sl/26-2003/26-2003-64.html; Tatarovskaya I.M. Universal'nyy yazyk: pro i contra (Lingvopoliticheskie aspekty globalizatsii): M.: Sovremennaya ekonomika i pravo, 2003; Troshina N. N. Lingvisticheskiy aspekt mezhkul'turnoy kommunikatsii/ Lingvisticheskie issledovaniya v kontse XX veka. Sb. obzorov/ Issledovatel'skiy otdel yazykoznaniya/ Otv. Red. Berezin F. M. – M., 2000; Fettes, M Linguistic Ecology. Towards an Integrative Linguistic Science. Retrieved from the World Wide Web June 9, 2000: http://www.esperantic.org/~mfettes/home.htm; Fill A. Language and Ecology: Ecolinguistic Perspectives for 2000 and Beyond. – Tokyo, 2000. 5 Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – p. 24. 6 “NRC Handelsblat”, 26.11.1998; Language Marketing // Baker C., Jones S.P. Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon, Philadelphia, Toronto, Johannesburg, 1998. – pp. 220-225; Lakoff G. Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify War in the Gulf// D. Yallet (ed.) Engulfed in War: Just war and the Persian Gulf. Honolulu, 1991. – pp. 50-56; 7 M.S. Puig. Ispanskiy yazyk i yazyki Ispanii// Reshenie natsional'no-yazykovykh voprosov v sovremennom mire/ Pod red. Akad. E.P. Chelysheva. – M. – SPb: Zlatoust, 2003. – pp. 153-160. 8 Perspectivas Exteriores 2004. Los Intereses de España en el Mundo: PEBN, Madrid, 2004. – p. 245. 9 Khose Luis. Interv'yu s korolem Ispanii Khuanom Karlosom I//Nezavisimaya gazeta. 3.07.2003. 10 Davydov V.M. Tsivilizatsionnye kachestva regiona// Latinskaya Amerika. 2007. №4; Subichus B.Yu. Novyy svet i kul'tura Novogo vremeni// Latinskaya Amerika i mirovaya kul'tura. M.:Institut Latinskoy Ameriki RAN, 1995; Shemyakin Ya.G. Iberoamerikanskaya politicheskaya kul'tura i tsennosti modernizatsii: perspektivy demokratii v Latinskoy Amerike/Globalizatsiya razvitiya, Novye orientiry Rossii i Latinskaya Amerika. ILA RAN. M, 1996. – pp. 151-163; Shemyakin Ya. G. Evropa i Latinskaya Amerika: Vzaimodeystvie tsivilizatsiy v kontekste vsemirnoy istorii. M.: Nauka, 2001. – pp. 20-89; Yakovets V.Yu. O mnogomernoy geotsivilizatsionnoy modeli//Globalizatsiya i vzaimodeystvie tsivilizatsiy: M, Ekonomika. 2003. – pp. 49-68; Numberto Lópes Morales. La Aventura Del Español en América:Editorial Espasa Calpe, S. A., 2005. – pp. 47-173; Pérez-Díaz V. Sueño y Razón de América Latina: Fundacion ICO. Madrid, 2005. – p. 15-89; Sepúlveda Isidro. El Sueño de la Madre Patria. Hispanjamericanismo y Nacionalismo: Fundación Carolina. Centro de Estudios Hispanicos e Iberoamericanos, Marcial pons, Ediciones de Historia, S. A. Madrid, 2005. 11 Yag'ya V.S. Politicheskaya karta v kontekste mirovoy politiki v XXI veke//Obrazy geoprostranstva: sb.st./ red.kol.: S.B. Lavrov, Yu.N. Gladkiy, D.V. Sukhorukov, I.A. ZairBek, SPb.: izd-vo SPbGTU, 2000. – pp. 73-78; Yag'ya B.C. Yazyk kak faktor vo vneshney politike gosudarstva//Rossiya v global'nom mire. Sotsial'no-teoreticheskiy al'manakh №4. SPb, 2003; Yag'ya V.S., Blinova N.V Angliyskiy yazyk kak faktor mirovoy politiki)//Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta. Seriya 6. mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, Vypusk 4 (ch.1) December 2007. 12 S. Khantington. Stolknovenie tsivilizatsiy/per.s angliyskogo, M.: Izd-vo AST, 2003. – p. 6 13 S. Khantington. Stolknovenie tsivilizatsiy/per.s angliyskogo, M.: Izd-vo AST, 2003. – pp. 85-86; Leontovich O.A. Paradoksy mezhkul'turnogo obshcheniya// Yazykovaya lichnost': aspekty lingvistiki i lingvodidaktiki. – Volgograd, 1999. – pp. 54-98; Musorin A.Yu. Osnovy nauki o yazyke – Novosibirsk: Novosibirskoe knizhnoe izdatel'stvo, 2004; Blecua J.M. El

13

Español, lengua extranjera// Perspectivas Exteriores 2004. Los Intereses de España en el Mundo: PEBN, Madrid, 2004. – pp. 151-167. 14 S. Huntington Who are we?:The Challenges to America’s National Identity. N.Y., 2004; Sm.: S. Khantington Kto my?: Vyzovy amerikanskoy natsional'noy identichnosti/ S.Khantington; per.s angl. A. Bashkirova. – M.: OOO «Izdatel'stvo AST»: OOO «Tranzitkniga», 2004. – pp. 347-403. 15 Graham E. Fuller “Neonationalism and Global Politics: An Era of Separatism”//Current 344 (July-August 1992). – pp. 18-24; Robert D. Kaplan ”History moving North”// New York Times, 17 February 2003; M. Janowitz The Reconstruction of Patriotism: Education for Civic Consciousness: University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1983. – pp. 29-128. 16 Davydov V. M. Bespretsedentnyy sdvig v politicheskom landshafte regiona// Latinskaya Amerika. 2007. №7; Mikheeva N.F. Ispanskiy yazyk na territorii yugo-zapadnykh shtatov Ameriki: Monografiya. – M.: Izd-vo RUDN, 2002; Narumov V.P. Ispanskiy yazyk/Yazyki mira: Romanskie yazyki. M.: Academia, 2001; Khayt V.L. Istorichnost' i mera samobytnosti kul'tury Latinskoy Ameriki// Latinskaya Amerika i mirovaya kul'tura. M.:Institut Latinskoy Ameriki RAN, 1995; Shemyakin Ya.G. «Pogranichnye» tsivilizatsii planetarnogo masshtaba// Latinskaya Amerika. 2007. №7. – pp. 69-77. Martínes Blanco, M. T. Identidad Cultural de Hispanoamérica. Europeismo y Originalidad Americana, Madrid, Universidad Complutense, 1998. – pp. 12-53; Pérez-Díaz V. Sueño y Razón de América Latina: Fundacion ICO. Madrid, 2005. – pp. 89 -118. 17 M.S. Puig. Ispanskiy yazyk i yazyki Ispanii// Reshenie natsional'no-yazykovykh voprosov v sovremennom mire/ Pod red. Akad. E.P. Chelysheva. – M. – SPb: Zlatoust, 2003. – pp. 153-160. 18 Gronskaya N.E. Virtual'noe prostranstvo yazykovoy politiki: konfliktnost' lingvisticheskogo sushchestvovaniya// Polis 2004, № 5. – pp. 58-69; Korolev K. Universal'nyy yazyk i universal'naya pis'mennost': v pogone za mechtoy// Yazyki kak obraz mira. – M.: OOO «Izdatel'stvo AST», SPb.: Terra Fantastica, 2003. – pp. 498562; A. Chervontsev Angliyskiy yazyk v sovremennom mire/Reshenie natsional'noyazykovykh voprosov v sovremennom mire/ pod red akad. E.P. Chelysheva. – M. – SPb: Zlatoust, 2003. – pp. 45-47; Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – pp. 25-43; Srystal D. English as a Global Language. Cambridge University Press. 1997; Morin Regina. Evidence in the Spanish language press of linguistic borrowings of computer and Internet-related terms// Spanish in Context, Volume 3, Number 2, 2006. pp. 98-179; Phillipson R. Global English and Local Language Policies: What Denmark Needs. – Language Problems and Language Planning, Vol. 25, № 1, 2001; Rothkopf D. In Praise of Cultural Imperialism?/ Foreign Policy, 107, 1997. – pp. 45-46; Watson A. Jamestown: The Voyage of English. – L: ESU, 2007. – p. 60. 19 Editorial//Label France, January 1998. – p. 1. 20 Chernov I.V.Ukaz.sochin. – p. 207. 21 Lebedeva M.M. Politicheskaya sistema mira: proyavleniya «vnesistemnosti», ili novye aktory – starye pravila// «Privatizatsiya» mirovoy politiki: lokal'nye deystviya, global'nye rezul'taty./Otv. red. M.M. Lebedeva. – M.: Tipografiya «Novosti», 2008. – pp. 53-66; Mel'vil' A.Yu. Stanovlenie transnatsional'noy politicheskoy sredy i volny «demokratizatsii»// Sovremennye mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya i mirovaya politika: Uchebnik./Otv. red. A.V. Torkunov – M.: «Prosveshchenie», 2004 – pp. 106-142; Marchuk N. I. Ob"ekt i predmet teorii mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy// Metodologiya i teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy: Materialy «Kruglogo stola». – M.: Izd-vo RAGS, 2004; Pavlova E.B. Portugaliya i integratsionnye protsessy v sovremennom mire: politicheskie aspekty. Sankt-Peterburg:

14

BAN, 2001; Prokhorenko I.L. Natsional'nyy interes vo vneshney politike gosudarstva: opyt sovremennoy Ispanii. Pasport Grafika. - M. 1995; Ortega M. El papel de España en el mundo// Perspectivas Exteriores 2004. Los Intereses de España en el Mundo: PEBN, Madrid, 2004. – pp. 123-131. 22 Alpatov V. M. 150 yazykov i politika: 1917-1997. M. Kraft, Institut vostokovedeniya RAN, 1997; Ilishev I.G. Yazyk i politika v mnogonatsional'nom gosudarstve. Ufa, 2000; Korolev K. Universal'nyy yazyk i universal'naya pis'mennost': v pogone za mechtoy// Yazyki kak obraz mira. – M.: OOO «Izdatel'stvo AST», SPb.: Terra Fantastica, 2003; Molodkin A. M. Vzaimodeystvie yazykov raznogo tipa v etnokul'turnom kontekste (yazykovye kontakty v portugaloyazychnoy Afrike) Pod red. akad. MAN VSh L.I. Barannikovoy. – Saratov: Izdvo Sarat. Un-ta, 2001; Nevroznak V.P. Zakony o yazykakh narodov Rossiyskoy Federatsii i programmirovanie yazykovogo razvitiya/ Yazyki narodov Rossii: perspektivy razvitiya: Materialy mezhdunarodnogo seminara. Elista: APP «Dzhangar», 2000; Chomsky N. Language and Responsibility. Brighton. Harvester Press, 1979; Dominguez F. Toward a language-marketing model // International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 1998. Vol.134; Fishman J.The New Linguistic Order // Foreign Policy.–Winter.–1998-1999; Morales H.L. El Futuro del Español// Enciclopedia del Español en el Mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2006-2007: Instituto Cervantes, Madrid 2007. – pp. 476-491. 23 García L.A. La lengua Español y sus tres formas de estar en el mundo// Enciclopedia del Español en el Mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2006-2007: Instituto Cervantes, Madrid 2007. – pp. 471-475; Mar-Molinero C. The Iberian Peninsula: Conflicting Linguistic Nationalism./ Language and Nationalism in Europe. Eds S. Barbour and C. Carmichael. Oxford University Press, 2002. - pp. 153-168; Mar-Molinero C. The Politics of Language in the Spanish-Speaking World from Colonization to Globalization. – London and New York: Routledge, 2000; Pique J. Nuevas fronteras de la politica exterior de España. // Politica Exterior. Vol.XV. enero/febrero 2001. Num.79; Ruiz Gimenez G. Hacia la integracion. // El Pais. Extra. Fin de siglo en America Latina. 14.06.1994; Untoria Pedroso M.A. Consolidar y fortalecer el espacio Iberoamericano. – Madrid, 2002. 24 Arredondo, Santiago Castillo: Elementos Facilitadotes de la Ensenanza a Distancia. La Intercomunicacion entre los protagonistas de la Enseñanza a Distancia. Revista Iberoamericana de Educacion a Distancia, UNED, Madrid .№ 2, 1990; Blecua J.M. El Español, lengua extranjera// Perspectivas Exteriores 2004. Los Intereses de España en el Mundo: PEBN, Madrid, 2004; Juan José Solozabal Echevarria, «El régimen constitucional del bilingüísmo. La Cooficialidad lingüística como garantia institucional», Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional, 55, 1998. - pp. 28-31; García L.A. La lengua Español y sus tres formas de estar en el mundo// Enciclopedia del Español en el Mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2006-2007: Instituto Cervantes, Madrid 2007; Numberto Lópes Morales. La Aventura Del Español en América:Editorial Espasa Calpe, S. A., 2005; Pique J. Nuevas fronteras de la politica exterior de España. // Politica Exterior. Vol.XV. enero/febrero 2001. Num.79. 25 Sotsiolingvisticheskie problemy razvivayushchikhsya stran/ Otv. red. Yu.D. Desheriev. – M.: Izd-vo «Nauka», 1975. 26 ibid, p. 240. 27 ibid, p. 241. 28 Yag'ya V.S. Administrativno-territorial'noe delenie i etnicheskie protsessy v osvobodivshikhsya stranakh Afriki(Postanovka problemy)//Rasy i narody. Ezhegodnik/Otv. red. I.R. Gurlevich. – M.: Nauka, 1975.Vyp.5. – pp. 189-214; Yag'ya B.C. Yazyk kak faktor vo vneshney politike gosudarstva // Rossiya v global'nom mire. Sotsial'no-teoreticheskiy al'manakh №4. SPb, 2003 – pp. 289-294. 29 Watson A. Jamestown: The Voyage of English. – L: ESU, 2007

15

30 Khudoley K. Saint Petersburg State University – School of International Relations // International Affairs Education at the Dawn of the 21st century / Ed. by Marcus Grundah. Association of Professional Schools of International Affairs New York, NY. 2002. - pp. 43–46. 31 Drobot G.A. Rol' mezhdunarodnykh organizatsiy v mirovoy politike: osnovnye teoreticheskie podkhody. //Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. №1, 1999. Seriya 18 «Sotsiologiya i politologiya»; Ermol'eva E. G. Latinoamerikanskie vneshnie kul'turnye svyazi: institutsional'nyy aspekt//Latinskaya Amerika i mirovaya kul'tura. M.:Institut Latinskoy Ameriki RAN, 1995; Lepretre M. Yazykovoe planirovanie i ispol'zovanie yazyka v Katalonii/Deyatel'nost' mezhdunarodnykh organizatsiy i evropeyskiy opyt v oblasti sokhraneniya yazykov etnicheskikh men'shinstv: Materialy mezhdunarodnogo seminara. Elista: APP «Dzhangar», 2000; Mazhlof Anna-Maria. Prioritety YuNESKO v oblasti sokhraneniya mirovogo yazykovogo naslediya //Yazyki narodov Rossii: perspektivy razvitiya: Materialy mezhdunarodnogo seminara. – Elista: APP «Dzhangar», 2000; Puch Pao Chetyre izmereniya Katalonskoy modeli/Deyatel'nost' mezhdunarodnykh organizatsiy i evropeyskiy opyt v oblasti sokhraneniya yazykov etnicheskikh men'shinstv: Materialy mezhdunarodnogo seminara. Elista: APP «Dzhangar», 2000; Garcia Aretio, Lorenzo. Investigar para mejorar la calidad de la universidad. Trabajo de investigacion sobre la UNED, Universidad Nacional Educacion a Distancia. - Madrid, 1997; Pozo A. La cooperacion para el desarollo de la Union Europea en America Latina. La accion Española ante un pasado umbrio y un futuro incierto.http://www. cidob.es/Castellano/Publicaciones/Afers/5455ayuso.htm; Manuel Diez de Velasco Vallejo. Las Organizaciones Internacionales, Madrid: Editorial Tecnos. 12a edición, 2002. – pp. 682-770. 32 Baranov O.N., V.A. Golitsyn, V.V. Tereshchenko. Global'noe upravlenie. – M.: Izd-vo «MGIMO-Universiteta», 2006. 33 Lagutina M.L. Politicheskie usloviya stanovleniya novoy sistemy mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy. Avtoref. diss. na soiskanie uch.st. kand. polit. nauk. – SPb, 2006. – p. 6. 34 Bogaturov A.D. Plyuralisticheskaya odnopolyarnost' i interesy Rossiyskoy Federatsii// Sovremennaya mysl', 1996. № 2; Bogaturov A.D., N.A. Kosolapov, M.A. Khrustalev. Ocherki teorii i politicheskogo analiza mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy. – M., 2002; Vasil'ev A.M. Assimetrichnost' mirovogo razvitiya i regional'nye problemy// Dilemmy globalizatsii. Sotsiumy i tsivilizatsii: illyuzii i riski/Otv.red. T.T. Timofeev. – M.: Variant, 2001. – pp. 373-400; Vallerstayn I. Dilemmy XXI veka i osobennosti perekhodnoy epokhi// Dilemmy globalizatsii. Sotsiumy i tsivilizatsii: illyuzii i riski/Otv.red. T.T. Timofeev. – M.: Variant, 2001. – pp. 64-78; Ivanov N.P. Tsivilizatsionnyy krizis v kontekste globalizatsii// Dilemmy globalizatsii. Sotsiumy i tsivilizatsii: illyuzii i riski/Otv.red. T.T. Timofeev. – M.: Variant, 2001. – pp. 311-329; B.Yu. Katarlitskiy. Globalizatsiya i novye sotsial'nye dvizheniya// Dilemmy globalizatsii. Sotsiumy i tsivilizatsii: illyuzii i riski/Otv.red. T.T. Timofeev. – M.: Variant, 2001. – pp. 159-175; Kulagin V.M. Mir v XXI veke: mnogopolyarnyy balans sil ili global'nyy Pax Democratica?//Polis, 2000. № 1; T.T. Timofeev. Paradigmy globalizatsii// Dilemmy globalizatsii. Sotsiumy i tsivilizatsii: illyuzii i riski/Otv.red. T.T. Timofeev. – M.: Variant, 2001. – pp. 17-37; Bledso U. Globalizatsiya i tsivilizatsii// Dilemmy globalizatsii. Sotsiumy i tsivilizatsii: illyuzii i riski/Otv.red. T.T. Timofeev. – M.: Variant, 2001. – pp. 330351; J.E. Stiglitz. Globalization and its Discontents. - N.Y., 2002. 35 Bzhezinskiy Z. Velikaya shakhmatnaya doska. Gospodstvo Ameriki i ego geostrategicheskie imperativy. – M.: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 1999; Bzhezinskiy Z. Vybor. Mirovoe gospodstvo ili global'noe liderstvo.- M.: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2004; Bzhezinskiy Z. Eshche odin shans. Tri prezidenta i krizis amerikanskoy sverkhderzhavy. - M.: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2007; S.M. Ivanov O «bol'shoy idee» rossiyskoy diplomatii//

16

Aktual'nye problemy mirovoy politiki v XXI veke/Otv.red. V.S. Yag'ya. – SPb.: Izd-vo «Nestoristoriya», 2007. – pp. 60-68; M.M. Lebedeva. Mirovaya politika. Uchebnik dlya vuzov – M.: «Aspekt-Press». 2-oe izdanie, 2007; Primakov E.M. Mir posle 11-go sentyabrya. – M.: Mysl', 2002; Utkin A.I. Mirovoy poryadok XXI veka. – M.: Algoritm, 2001. 36 Aktual'nye problemy mirovoy politiki v XXI veke/Otv.red. V.S. Yag'ya. – SPb.: Izd-vo «Nestor-istoriya», 2007; Aktual'nye problemy mirovoy politiki v XXI veke. Vypusk 3. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov/Otv.red. V.S. Yag'ya. – SPb.: Izd-vo «Nestor-istoriya», 2008. – p. 220. 37 Yag'ya V.S. Razmyshleniya o kontseptual'nykh ideyakh «Obzora»// Aktual'nye problemy mirovoy politiki v XXI veke/Otv.red. V.S. Yag'ya. – SPb.: Izd-vo «Nestor-istoriya», 2007. – p. 37. 38 ibid, p. 38. 39 Enciclopedia del Español en el Mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2007-2008: Instituto Cervantes, Madrid 2008; Enciclopedia del Español en el Mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2006-2007: Instituto Cervantes, Madrid 2007; Español en el Mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2005: Instituto Cervantes, Madrid 2005. 40 Watson A. Jamestown: The Voyage of English. – L: ESU, 2007. 41 Zav'yalova O. Kitayskoe lingvisticheskoe chudo// Nezavisimaya gazeta, 28 yanvarya 2009; N.E Esipova, S. Gradirovskiy. Russkiy yazyk na postsovetskom prostranstve// Nezavisimaya gazeta, 28 oktyabrya 2008; Latyshskiy yazyk, yazyki v Latvii//Rossiyskaya gazeta, 15 noyabrya 2003; Peter van Ham. The rise of the Brand State//Foreign Affairs, 2001, vol. 80, № 5. – pp. 2-6; B. Donker. Jungle van vertaalcombinaties//NRC Handelsblad, 26.11.1998; English is still on the March//The Economist, 24th of February 2001. – p. 50; Joking to Latin America// International Herald Tribune, November 2008. – pp. 29-30; Aznarez J.J./ Vicent M. La declaracion final de la Cumbre recogera el rechazo a cualquier extraterritorialidad. // El Pais. 15.11.2008.

17

Chapter 1.

Linguistic Dimension of Global Politics. Its Theoretical and Practical Aspects 1.1. The Multi-sidedness of Lingua-academic Approaches towards the Role of Language in Modern Society Language development is closely connected with the development of human society. It is a foundation for human dialogue and a necessary requirement for the existence of any human organization. According to a number of the world famous linguists Humboldt, Weisberg, Coseriu, Marti, Whorf, Trier and Dornseiff, language represents a unique civilizational value that helps form the corresponding “global image”, the code of world concepts and the mindset of various peoples. Any national language carries out some of the basic functions: dialogue (communicative), message (informative), influence (emotive) and what is especially important for any research in the context of the linguistic dimension of global politics, the function of “recording and storing all global knowledge and the conceptual ideas of a particular language community”42. Each language reflects a certain method of worldview and encoding. According to the group of language researchers A.A. Leontyev43, O.A. Kornilov44, A.M. Molodkin45, I.G. Olshansky46 and R. Bogrand47, language captures the human collective consciousness that appears in the so-called “language matrixes”48. All values that are expressed within the language develop into a uniform idea framework, a kind of collective philosophy, which is acquired by native speakers. Language is the basic element in people’s way of thinking, their national worldview and evaluation logic. It creates unique evaluative landmarks for each nation. In other words, language becomes one of the main “architects” of national mindset and accordingly national culture in its broader meaning. This includes studying its historical, economic, geographical and political determinants. It implies an insight into the national mindset, an attempt to look at the world through the perspective

18

of the carriers of this culture. According to S. Huntington, “culture” has become both an integration and disintegration force after the Cold War49. Huntington builds his theory of civilizational collision on culture as a phenomenon. He defines civilization as the “cultural alliance of language, history, religion, traditions and cultural values”50. Huntington believes that global politics is the politics of civilizations. Global politics has nowadays become multipolar and poly-civilizational51. Huntington’s statements undoubtedly include language, its functional characteristics, development vectors and the global political priorities that reflect the language world image, its perception and understanding. The “language consciousness” phenomenon has drawn increasing attention of the representatives of various academic schools52. A.A. Leontyev introduced the concept of the world image into psycholinguistics. It is one of the most fundamental concepts to describe existential peculiarities and the interaction of individuals as representatives of various cultures with their environment. Leontyev writes that “to have consciousness means to know the language; to know the language means to possess values”53. The system of these values is different for each language consciousness. For example, the linguistic comparison of French and Russian mindsets is conducted by analyzing the lingua-cultural concepts of destiny, soul, mind, conscience, thought, idea, fear, etc. The concepts of verity, truth and good are the moral dominants of the Russian consciousness. The French consciousness is focused on activity, purposefulness, responsibility and the ambition for prosperity and welfare. This set of values originates in antiquity. In other words, the mutual understanding between the representatives of different nations is only possible when they share a common knowledge base of language and stereotypes, which exist in their native culture. Mutual understanding between native speakers of different languages representing different cultures is limited to the intersections of their consciousness. Discrepancy of these areas leads to misunderstanding in the cross-cultural dialogue. Language is an existential state of national consciousness. It is the means to understand both native and foreign cultures in their subjective, physical and mental forms. The understanding of foreign national consciousness often occurs through its comparison with the native consciousness or by means of searching for intersection points. There are no identical national cultures and therefore no identical conscious stereotypes. All of the sensory and mental images are nation-specific in different cultures. Many researchers raise the question about the existence of a uniform world image in various ethnocultural communities, which is common for everyone, independent of their nationality54. Many scholars, in particular

19

Ch. Osgood55, consider that the underlying basic structure of the world image is identical in all languages. It is based on the uniformity of human existence and therefore provides an opportunity for mutual understanding on the international level. According to a number of researchers, language will only stop causing international conflicts and mutual misunderstanding in the case of total language unification and the creation of one universal language. Presumably, such theoretical concepts underlie the search for a universal “constructed” language, such as Esperanto. However, in spite of the fact that every national language consciousness possesses certain universal characteristics, I consider the creation of an effective universal language impossible. A more detailed prospective on this problem will follow in the second paragraph of the current chapter. In any cultural community, unique national world images are passed from generation to generation explicitly through native language. Some examples come from advertising. Any hidden meaning in a commercial that can be perceived by the native culture will be incomprehensible to other ethnic and cultural communities, should they become the target audience for this commercial in their own country. Several years ago Sony advertised camcorders in Spain using an image of a jellyfish as a typical symbol of grace. However, the jellyfish did not at all attract the Spanish market. In another case, the French carmaker “Renault” launched its new car “NOVÁ”, which means “new” in French. However, the car did not have any success in the Spanish market because Spaniards were not interested in buying a car with a name that meant “doesn’t go” in Spanish (Spanish “no va”). Another example originates in the field of international negotiations. In 1998, after two “no tie” meetings between Russian and Japanese leaders, the Japanese side was shocked by the unusual and “clearly national” way that the Russian side approached these events. As a result, the Japanese insisted that all future meetings of such level be conducted in the form of “official visits”56. These simple examples clearly demonstrate the diversity of the peoples’ worldview and the fact that language can become a key factor of international misunderstanding and respectively rejection of other cultures. Various forms of international tensions are in many ways connected to the area of language relations. Language acts as an organ of national self-consciousness, selfreflection and the worldview of a particular ethnic group. W. Humboldt; the representative of the “linguistic relativity” theory wrote in the introduction to his last study “Of the Kawi Language” on Java that each language embeds a distinctive worldview and ideology”57. The author of the given monograph considers the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis as a key linguistic teaching. At this point it will be analyzed in detail. Its first postulate indicates that different languages condition the

20

world according to the national perspective. The next step to the hypothesis is the statement that any language directs the native speakers’ thought into a channel, which is predetermined by the worldview within their language. One of Edward Sapir’s main conclusions is that the way people see, hear and experience the world is predetermined by the language habits of their society58. The second formulation of the hypothesis belongs to Benjamin Lee Whorf. “We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way—an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language”59. In scientific terms, we dissect the nature of civilization and the language itself as it is dictated by our native language. Every natural language represents a codified world, a belief system and a kind of national philosophy. Sapir and Whorf refer to the “tyranny” of the native language in a number of their writings each in a different way. It is the tyranny that no one is able to escape. It is the source of social and cultural development of the nation. In one of his works Sapir writes that meanings are not clarified through experience, but are imposed upon it due to the tyrannical supremacy of the language form over human orientation in the world60. This extract supports the understanding of the hypothesis and helps apply it to the given study. Sapir and Whorf turn language into a kettle for intellectual food. Language becomes a tool of human cognitive activity, a tool that is hidden on the subconscious level of the native speakers’ minds. Sapir and Whorf emphasize the fact that every language reveals its own system of categories and concepts. It is impossible to find two different languages that reflect reality the same way. Language is a “guide to social reality”61 that forms the national character. However, there exists a polar opposite perspective in linguistic research, a so-called “universalistic” approach. It is presented in the works of Kolshansky, Albrecht, Koseri and others. According to this concept, language does not define national mindset (as it would mean that there are as many philosophies as languages or language families). Language simply reflects it62. The author criticizes this concept and presumes that by removing language from the human consciousness and turning it into a mere “reflector” of national mindset and values, the role of language in the creation of a new and unique cultural worldview will be reduced. At the same time the author agrees with the notion that the question of the primacy and secondariness of language and national mindset resembles the dispute regarding the primacy of the chicken or the egg. According to O.A. Kornilov’s study, the external environment of a language-forming community, the cultural traditions, the physiological and anthropological

21

features form certain qualities, which then form the root of the national character, national temperament and mindset63. Next, specific mindset features enter the national language, get embodied and recorded in it. Subsequently these features are passed on from generation to generation via language, which later starts forming the national mindset. Kornilov’s arguments lead to the conclusion that no matter how strong the external changes in the historical ethnic environment, the national characteristics and the national mindset features will be reproduced in every coming generation. This happens because the language has absorbed the peculiarities of the national worldview and evaluation and therefore begins to impose stereotypes of national thought. According to the study results, the author of this thesis has become an adherent of the first reviewed concept that implies the dependence of the mindset of a particular ethnic group on its native language. Language is the “house of peoples’ spirit”, which is destined to pass the national “language world image”64 to the following generations. Every ethnic language is a unique value, an integral part of national mindset and a national culture tool for self-knowledge and self-expression. Another goal of this research is to analyze language in the context of cross-cultural communication. When we communicate with representatives of other countries and cultural “habitats”, we often ask ourselves what culture they belong to. It is not a coincidence that A. Baumgart and B. Jänecke’s popular German book on the specific nature of Russian culture begins with this question65. Most people perceive their native cultural standard as the only possible and correct alternative in the light of their national language, which is a conductor of national culture. This phenomenon is called ethnocentrism. According to G. Maletzke66, ethnocentrism has two characteristics: 1) native language and culture are seen as a matter of course, 2) native culture and language are perceived to be superior to other cultures. Ethnocentrism is only “one step away” from nationalism in its negative connotation. In this regard, nationalism can be defined as the recognition of one’s national superiority, an irrational explanation of superiority over other nations, non-recognition of human equality and the intolerance of other nations. Such nationalism will be rejected by the international community considering its documented negative reaction against nationalism. However, the community has to consider the fact that language, according to I. Chernov, “appears as a factor in global politics and serves as the basis (or at least as an inevitable companion) for the majority of serious conflicts of our time”67. One supporting example is the recent conflict in Macedonia regarding the Albanian language. Local Albanian population insisted on the equality of Albanian and

22

Macedonian (national language) with weapons in their hands. The other example is the resistance of the Turkish Kurds against the prohibition of the Kurdish language. Pressured by the EU, the Turkish government had to yield. Kurdish was widely spread in the Kurdish areas, on the radio and television. Since ethnocentrism contradicts the main thesis of human equality, which remains the central tenet of modern social and political ethics, a new counter concept, “cultural relativism”68, has appeared within the intercultural communication theory. According to this concept, there are no highly developed or underdeveloped cultures and languages. They cannot be compared on any level. This concept provides the necessary grounds for mutual understanding and perhaps even for the intertwining of different languages and associated cultures. The complex, multicomponent and multifaceted structure of different cultural and linguistic codes should be studied in the aforementioned context. According to O.A. Leontovich, “the matching of these codes opens communication channels, while their mismatching blocks them”69. This leads to the inevitable communication failures and contradictions, called “frame conflicts” in linguistics. However, this approach contains a contradictory opinion that communication skills develop best in the context of a multicultural society, that is, a society in which representatives of different languages and cultures live in close contact. Australia; a country of emigration, can be used as a good example. Australian language policy70 is based on the recognition of multilingualism and multiculturalism as the definition of the sociocultural situation (despite the absolute dominance of the English language). In such circumstances, in 1993 a number of educational institutions and government organizations in charge of the internal language policy were given the task of establishing an intercultural understanding within the country. The core of this understanding is the knowledge of each other’s cultural and linguistic identity and the willingness for dialogue on the basis of mutual recognition of cultural differences. Such measures should prevent any possible misunderstandings, discrimination and cultural stereotypes. Undoubtedly, each of the considered viewpoints fit into a certain culture. In the context of increasing globalization, two different cultures have developed: individualistic (e.g. European and North American) and collectivistic (Asian, Arab, African and Native American). These cultures are characterized by the obvious structural difference of the native languages and values, which can lead to contradictions. It is important to point out the multifaceted components of linguistic doctrines that contribute to the acquisition of knowledge in the field of the linguistic dimension of global politics. Modern scholars proposed the term “ecolinguistics” to define the discipline that studies the interaction

23

of languages on a global level. The ecolinguistic approach to language interprets the latter as an integral part of the relationship chain that exists between people, society and nature71. Einar Haugen, a Norwegian linguist who developed the relationship theory between languages and their natural environment72, was the first to introduce the term “ecolinguistics”. We should not treat language in isolation of the human external environment. The study of language diversity and its causes, the study of endangered languages, the relation between biological and linguistic diversity, the relationship between language and society and the relationship between the languages are the prospective ecolinguistic trends. Ecolinguistics studies the place of language in its environmental surroundings on a global level73. Followers of this discipline support the preservation of multilingualism because it supports plurality of world images. According to ecolinguists, monolingualism is extremely dangerous and can cause a disruption of the whole linguistic ecosystem. At this point, linguistic diversity, which is studied by political scientists and academics in the field of international relations, also becomes the subject of linguistic research. Ecolinguistics offers a unique academic base for the analysis of the linguistic situation in the world, the status of regional and minority languages on a global scale, the problem of biological diversity and the preservation of indigenous languages threatened with extinction. The analysis of geographical language space is of interest for this study. It is the subject of language geography or geolinguistics74, a transdisciplinary science that studies territorial language distribution and language phenomena. Language geography is associated with the names of R. Austerlitz, J. Nichols, E.A. Makaev, D.I. Eldman and others. Geographical factors can explain the nature and rate of language changes. Thus, the similarity between Spanish and Portuguese is often explained not only in terms of common language history (which is primarily associated with Latin) but also in terms of geographical proximity. The basic concept of geolinguistics is the language “habitat”, which is related to the phenomenon of genetic density. Genetic density is the number of languages spoken within a certain area of this habitat. The higher the density, the more languages are spoken. That is, geographical factor determines linguistic diversity and any language community in general. The term “language unions”75 that cover certain areas of language distribution has also been proposed by geolinguists. According to a number of prominent researchers, e.g. U. Weinreich and K. Masika, these unions are formed between the unrelated languages within one “habitat” that become more similar to one another rather than to the related languages in other habitats76. The Portuguese language in Brazil is a good example.

24

Many linguists77 note that Brazilian Portuguese is becoming more similar to Latin American Spanish, than to the language spoken in Portugal, its “civilizational” home country. According to some predictions, this trend will continue developing. It will be directly connected to the distribution area of the Spanish language and its neighboring countries of IberoAmerica, which will be affecting the nature of the Portuguese language in Brazil. However, the influence of one language on the other does not always follow such geographical patterns. For example, Russian was influenced by German and French, although their “habitats” had no direct contact points with the “habitat” of the Russian language. In present day global politics, English actively affects most world languages. This happens not because of, but in spite of geographical settings. In this case, the social, ethnic and historical proximity of language speakers becomes more powerful than the geographical factor. Thus, proximity is just one factor that causes changes in languages. Therefore, all these factors should be considered as a whole. The academic method of sociolinguistics was used in the given research. Sociolinguistics is a transdisciplinary science studying the social conditions of languages. Critical ideas in sociolinguistics belong to such eminent researchers as J. Baudouin de Courtenay, B.A. Larin, M. Cohen, Ch. Bally, J. Vendryes and others. According to J. Fishman; an American sociolinguist, studying language in social perspective makes it possible to see the way representatives of different cultures use their language78. The sociolinguistic language study takes into account a variety of factors that may influence the use of language, which ranges from various characteristics of the speakers to the peculiarities of a particular language. In the context of the research topic, sociolinguistics offers a number of important concepts and terms, among which “language community” and “language situation” have most significance. “Language community” may be defined as: a) a group of people within a common social, economic, political and cultural framework that use one or more common languages to communicate with each other, or; b) a whole country. “Language situation” reflects the principles of various communication systems that serve a particular language community. These terms are helpful in the multifaceted analysis of a situation, when geographical language boundaries do not coincide with political boundaries. Modern Africa is an obvious example, where one and the same language can be spoken in different countries (Swahili is common in Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and certain parts of Zaire and Mozambique), and several languages co-exist within the same state (Nigeria has more than 200). Two other concepts introduced by sociolinguistics are “linguistic code” as the means of communication and “linguistic subcode” that has a narrower scope of

25

use. These terms were applied to the current study in order to understand the origin of pidgins and their impact on the future of world languages. Linguistic economics79 as a new transdisciplinary science was proposed by both foreign and Russian academics over the recent years. It will provide a certain theoretical basis for this research. This discipline develops in two directions: from language to reality and from reality to language80. If this development moves from language to reality, it comes to singling out the language archetypes, which will fit into the linguistic image of a specific person as a part of the global economic community. All global, regional and national social economic development models have to consider the conceptual sphere of the national native language as well as being transparent, natural and understandable within the linguistic world image of different ethnic groups. Should this development move from reality to language, then it comes to the matter of language creation, the construction of a new universal language of global economic terms. Here, the language is seen as a conductor of economic globalization. The outcome of the research will be used to identify the economic component of Hispanophone and to study the influence of language on the interdependence of capital goods in the IberoAmerican region. Linguistic economics is often linked to the concepts of “language engineering” and “language marketing”. In the author’s opinion, these terms can become useful tools for practical language policy and its research. According to various academics, e.g. L. Muhryamova, language is a component of market relations. It can be replicated through newspaper advertisements, magazines, television, video and computers.81 According to Ch. Baker and S. Jones, “language marketing can be a challenge to the existing order. It can instigate political and social anxiety.”82 The language marketing application areas of major significance are the protection of the Russian language and its historical “habitat” in the neighboring countries, the protection of the rights of the Russian-speaking population and the combat against the discrimination of the Russian language. This is already an act of Russian foreign policy. The political, economic and culturological role of language has always been obvious not only to linguists, philosophers and economists, but also to other specialists, including politicians. The Russian word “политика” (pronounced: po-´li-ti-ka) has two different meanings despite its apparent simplicity. On the one hand it means “policy”, which implies certain government actions to fulfill one or the other political course, the technology of adopting political decisions; on the other hand it stands for “politics”, which is a more complex term. There are many definitions of “politics”. Political science textbooks offer absolutely different definitions

26

of this phenomenon: economic, stratificational, ethical, institutional, anthropological, conflict-consensus based, etc. While some define politics as activity directed to achieve public welfare, others understand it as actions that are directed to gain, retain and use authority. Another definition83 is a form of law-based civilizational dialogue between the people and a means of collective human existence. In the context of conflictology, it is a violent or peaceful conflict resolution activity, the intensity factor for interhuman unification or separation. According to I. V. Chernova, politics can be defined as “the planning, approval and implementation of obligatory resolutions for the society. This process includes the following stages: 1) goal setting; 2) decision making; 3) organization of the masses and resource-raising; 4) control over political activity; 5) outcome analysis; 6) new goal setting.”84 Politics represents public relations inseparably linked with authority in all contexts. Politics cannot exist outside the language sphere. Politics is in a way a system of human relations that in many respects occur through language. The term “political linguistics”85 has appeared in various publications in recent years. Political linguistics studies political language or the language of certain politicians. Political phenomena cannot be understood outside the dialogue and the mechanisms of political communication. In the world of politics, language turns into an environment in which humans act. Language becomes a link within the political society, a tool to maintain the required information level. Language, according to K.S.Gadzhiev, has to be considered as the first and the most important stage of socialization86. At the same time language becomes a tool to influence society, a phenomenon of social authority. That is, in many cases language plays the role of a control device. Kress and Hodge rightfully remark that “the language form allows for the transfer and distortion of information. A word possesses in itself a powerful informational and emotional charge”87. We cannot deny the plurality of contradictory language forms. A. Toynbee made a fair statement that “language history is an abstract of social history”88. The political dictionary develops according to historical realities and is very closely connected to the epoch dictionary; e.g. the concepts of “policy” and “politics” originated in the antiquity while “sovereignty” and “radicalism” appeared during the New Age. Today, the term “European language” or “Eurolanguage” is mentioned more often in the context of European integration. It represents a set of language terms and metaphors which are used in connection with the new European institutes. The word “Europe” has acquired a new meaning in this language and has become synonymous to the concepts of “United Europe” and “integration”89. A range of its derivatives have appeared: Europeanization, proeuropean, antieuropean, eurostandard, eurodeputy, European space, etc. The modern

27

political discourse has become a powerful tool to influence society. G. Lakoff describes in his research of how the US government and the pro government mass media have used certain linguistic concepts in order to implant the idea into the minds of American people (and the global community) that the US military operations against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq (First Gulf War) were ethically faultless90. The main argument was the struggle against a ruthless tyrant who had illegally attacked Kuwait. At the same time, the existing regime in Iraq used its political language forms to judge the USA for intervening in the internal affairs of the Arab states and supporting the totalitarian regime in Kuwait. In the context of their linguistic worldview, Arabs see the relation between Iraq and Kuwait as a relation between the brothers who can quarrel and resolve conflicts without a third party involved. In this case, Iraq is the big brother who is entitled to demand obedience from his younger brother. In the eyes of the Arabs, America is a stranger (an adherent of another religion who speaks a different language), trying to interfere with Arab interfamily relations. American leaders interpreted the relations between Kuwait and Iraq in the political language as relations between a robber and a peace-loving civilian, who is fortunately rescued by an old reliable friend, the valorous policeman. Mutual misunderstanding between Arabs and Americans during the First Gulf War can to a large extent be caused by language dissimilarities that are responsible for imagebuilding in people’s national consciousness. The political language used by the American government to justify its actions has appeared to be convincing for the majority of Americans and Europeans. The people in the Near East were more impressed by Saddam Hussein’s arguments. One of the most vivid examples of language use as means of political influence is the presentation of the Balkan events in the Russian and American political discourse.91 “Villain” and “victim” often swapped roles both in the USA and in Russia. The linguistic role of the “valorous savior” in Europe and the USA was given to NATO troops whereas Russian politicians gave this role to the Russians. Both Russian and American viewpoints were strongly influenced by the linguistic stereotypes of the native languages. The phrase “Russian and Serbs are brothers” was very common in Russian political debate at that time. The use of relationship terms is a powerful image-building tool for Russians. That was the reason why Russia used the interfamily model of relations with the former Yugoslavia instead of common principles in international relations. Relationship phenomenon plays no role for Americans. Therefore, Russian arguments expressed through language, do not have the desired effect in the USA92. American political language operates with metaphors regarding health care, economic profit and fair police, which find no feedback in

28

Russia. The same situation occurred around the recent invasion of Iraq. The language used to cover this topic contained corresponding political metaphors. Iraq in the eyes of Americans is a large organism that has to be treated by American-NATO doctors and called to order by valorous policeman Uncle Sam. The Spanish government led by Prime Minister H.M. Aznar supported the American invasion of Iraq. The Spanish government used American political metaphors translated into Spanish in order to find support among the population. However, Americans and Spaniards have a different national mindset. That is why Aznar’s politics in Iraq was not supported by public opinion. Aznar’s party failed in the following elections in Spain and the office was taken by the socialist leader José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and his cabinet. Apparently, the Spanish political will was strongly affected by Zapatero’s election promise to withdraw troops from Iraq, which contradicted Aznar’s course in foreign affairs. It is quite obvious that Aznar’s attempt to adopt the American worldview to Spanish foreign policy left his party with no chances to win in the elections. Thus, there is not only an inextricable connection between politics and language, but also “a certain political language, which is one of the most important manifestations of politics itself, a language as an authoritative tool”93. The given part of the research introduces a complex approach to language as social phenomenon. Linguistic, lingua-culturological, lingua-economic, lingua-ecological, sociolinguistic and lingua-political approaches form an integral part of complex language studies, which become the conceptual base for the creation of the theoretical lingua-political component of the international relations study. All of these approaches find application in this research, thus helping to point out the complexity of Hispanophone in the modern world. All Spanish speaking nations consider the following characteristics when planning their internal and foreign linguistic policies: language as a means to express the mindset of the Spanish-speaking world, language as a conductor of the “Spanish-speaking culture”; language as a source of contradictions in international relations between Ibero-America and the USA; language as an element that influences economic relations between Latin America and Spain, Latin America and the European Union; language as a tool for global political influence used by the Spanishspeaking countries. Spanish and Ibero-American linguistic policy requires more detailed analysis in the context of the given problem setting. However, before analyzing the given type of political activity, it is important to study the language phenomenon on the international scale, the international language hierarchy and the position of the Spanish language in the “club of global languages”.

29

1.2. International Hierarchy of Languages and the Future of Global Politics in Lingua-political Context Global politics is a new science, especially in Russia. Its establishment and development is therefore debated. The structural and conceptual building blocks of global politics are of great importance for this monograph. These being the transnational environment of global politics and the various actors that influence the interests and life conditions of the global community, attract the attention of almost all the countries in the world and force the leading countries, dependent on their national interests, to take part in monitoring and potentially resolving these phenomena. The acceleration of globalization processes causes changes in global politics. The so-called “international continuum” that arises due to these changes becomes a cradle for a global linguistic order. The international hierarchy of languages is an important component of the linguistic dimension of global politics. It indicates the main areas of world language policy for a certain state or a group of states united by common language, cultural values, spiritual concepts, basic ideological and perceptional elements, history and cross-geographical features. There are five typical communicational language ranks: 1) global, 2) international, 3) official, 4) regional and 5) local94. Local languages are common for minor ethnic groups. Regional language is a language of interethnic communication that has no official status (such as Turkish in Bulgaria, Sardinian in Italy and Monegasque in Monaco). Official language is a particular body of international relations, a strategic factor of any state, and a national attribute in international relations. Each state has one or more official languages (e.g. Bolivia - Spanish, Quechua and Aymara; Afghanistan - Pashto and Dari; Sri Lanka - Sinhala and Tamil; South Africa - 11 languages: Afrikaans, English, Southern Ndebele, Northern Sotho, Southern Sotho, Swazi, Tsonga, Tswana, Venda, Xhosa and Zulu)95. “International languages” are languages that are used in international communication and have the status of official languages in a number of states. Examples of these languages are German, Portuguese, Malay-Indonesian and Swahili. A “global language” is language of intercultural or inter-state communication, which has the status of the official language of the UN. The global languages of today are English, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Russian and Spanish. These languages belong to a “global language club.” German is sometimes also added to this group. In general, the difference between “global” and “international” languages is rather conventional. They are synonymous, because both kinds are used for communication between various states.

30

Language situation in the framework of the modern “global language system” depends on social and historical factors and on the role of nations in the world’s cultural, civilizational, informational and academic process. “Macro-intermediary languages”96 or languages adopted by a number of countries and peoples as their primary means of international communication underwent many changes in the course of history and were regional rather than global. Latin played a role of the intermediary language in medieval Europe97. Latin was the language of literary works that became a part of the European Cultural Foundation. Diplomatic agreements between countries were signed in Latin. It was the language of the universities. The fact that the scholars of the Middle Ages and Renaissance were often multinational promoted the dominance of Latin in higher education. In addition, Latin was the language of the Catholic Church, which originally was a multinational confession98. From the 18th century French started to replace Latin as an international language. French was originally a regional variety of Latin. Such a replacement was caused by the leading role of the French monarchy and the fact that it was able to impose French as the primary means of communication throughout Europe99. After France lost its leading economic and military position in the world, which was mainly due to the loss of its colonies, the displacement of French by English and the dominance of the latter on global scale became inevitable. For many centuries, classical Arabic has been and to a certain extent still remains the intermediary language of the Islamic East. In the countries of the Far East and South-East Asia the language of international communication throughout the Middle Ages was Wenyan, old Chinese literary language. It greatly influenced the development of languages such as Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese. In modern international relations, the role of the international language of this region belongs to the Chinese language. Language history is inextricably linked with the historical fate of the native speakers. For example, the language diversity of the Iberian Peninsula and the fate of the Castilian (Spanish) language are related to the discrepancy of the two worlds with Tartessos and the Mastiens on one side and the Iberians and Celtiberians on the other; that is, the divergence of ancient cultures. After the Treaty of Tordesillas100, Spanish became the intermediary language between Spain and its colonies in Latin America. The fact that most of Latin America speaks Spanish derives from the civilizational and historical community of Ibero-American countries. The role of this community can hardly be overestimated and will be analyzed in the second chapter, as it is directly related to the topic of the study. From

31

a historical point of view, the development of global languages was mainly influenced by demographic factors; i.e., the increase of the native speaker population. The formation of certain global languages was also influenced by the economic and military factors. In the modern world of globalization, informatization and computerization; current intermediary languages move beyond their geographical spaces, become virtual global languages and form a “global linguistic order”, or “global linguistic hierarchy”. These languages are referred to as the “global language club”101 and include the most significant and recognized languages. In order to define which languages belong to this club, the author will analyze the lingua-political image of the world today and make a number of predictions regarding its future development. Most studies estimate that there are more than 6,000 languages on our planet. About 300 languages have a developed written system. But there exists other estimations. V.A. Tishkov cites unnamed academics and states that the global language panorama is dense and complex. It consists of about 6,000 languages, yet only slightly more than 100 of them are welldeveloped written languages102. In turn, UNESCO experts claim that there are 6,700 languages on Earth, more than half of which are endangered103. Small numbers of native speakers and negative lingua-political effects have turned the issue of language extinction into a global political and national problem. Bolivia can be used as an example in the national context. Its new constitution requires the integration of Native American languages in the educational system. The introduction of multilingualism in several countries, e.g. Canada, is not coincidental. The UNESCO project of democratic governance in the multinational and multicultural society focuses on language diversity, particularly in the case of Kyrgyzstan104. The fundamental documents of the UN, UNESCO, ILO, EU and the Northern Dimension reflect concerns over preservation of minor languages. 1500 languages are considered to be the most common. 22 languages are spoken by 75% of the world’s population. 7 languages are spoken by 50%105. The key factors that influence the prevalence of a language are history, geography, international status, economic and military power of the country, its strategic guidelines as well as its geopolitical and virtual space. Based on geopolitical criteria, the “internationalism” of a language can be assessed by identifying its global (planetary), regional and subregional levels. In order to determine the influence of a language, the author will introduce the terms “language status” and “language corpus” as proposed by French and English academics and compiled by I.V. Chernov106, the leading expert in the linguistic dimension of global politics at the St.

32

Petersburg School of International Relations. Chernov defines “language corpus” as its origin, and “language status” as the place it occupies in the linguistic hierarchy107. There are many indicators that help to assess the influence of global languages: the “numerical strength” of the language space, i.e., number of native speakers; the official status of the language in the world, the “economic power”, which is measured by the gross national product of native speakers worldwide; and the level of military and political influence of the countries that are united by one language in the global arena. This data is used to determine the “language corpus”. The “language status” is determined by means of the following indicators: the usage of a particular language as an official language by international organizations, its cultural influence or “outward image”, the number of academic publications in that language, education, i.e., the presence of that language as in foreign curricula on all educational levels; and its virtual space. According to Chernov’s comparative study of “Language status” and “corpus”, English is in first place. Its shape is a perfect square that reflects the state of matters in global politics today. Spanish, Arabic and German sectors are also squares, which represent their political stability. The Chinese sector has a great foundation, which indicates the significant potential of the Chinese language108. Analyzing the set of status or corpus indicators helps with evaluating the language “weight” in global politics. In this context, the author will focus on the Spanish language. One of the key indicators of language influence is demography, i.e., the number of native speakers. Various information sources often present different data; however, the basic parameters remain the same. Chinese is in first place worldwide with more than 1.5 billion native speakers. English holds the stable second place with approximately 480 million speakers. According to the latest data, Spanish is in third place with 360 million native speakers with this figure expected to increase. Hindu and Urdu come next with more than 200 million native speakers followed by Bengali, Arabic, Portuguese and Russian with 160 - 200 million native speakers each. Japanese, German and French range from 73 to 120 million native speakers. This pattern displays merely the “numerical strength” of the languages and reflects their demographic significance. Undoubtedly, this indicator plays a substantial role in the expansion process of the language distribution area. A list of the most common languages should include at least 10 to15 more languages such as Korean, Telugu, Tamil, Cantonese, Italian, Turkish, Thai, Swahili, Hausa, Wu and possibly Ukrainian. Each of these languages is spoken by 50 to100 million people. Many native speakers of these

33

languages can speak other languages and use them to communicate with their neighbors or the neighbors of their neighbors. Native speakers living in a foreign language environment are cut off from their native language area and, as a result, often forget their language. This phenomenon is especially typical for migrants of the second or third generation. It was not coincidental that during his visit to Germany, Turkey’s Prime Minister R.T. Erdoğan urged Turkish immigrants to keep their native language, their culture and customs and not to assimilate with the Germans. This appeal turned into an international scandal, which, however, ended rather quickly. Nonetheless, Erdogan’s carefully considered statement was made in the context of linguistic mobilization109. When people feel the increasing state or public driven discrimination of their language, its defense mechanisms mobilize the people to fight for their lingua-political rights and oppose the authorities on social, economic and political levels, including armed conflicts. This was the case in Kosovo, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Macedonia. V.I. Lenin made his famous statement that the more the Irish lost the Irish Language, the more Irish they became. V.S Yagya often quotes A. Boronyev, a professor in Saint Petersburg, that the Buryats, who forgot their language, became more violent separatists blaming Soviet and Russian authorities for Russification. The number of countries where a language has the status of an official or a state language determines its global political influence. This significance criterion was proposed by João Malaca Casteleiro, a professor in Lisbon. According to this criterion, D. Alves has estimated that, English, which is spoken in 47 countries, holds first place in the world. (I.V. Chernov presents a different figure: 69 countries. According to Alan Watson, Chernov’s figure is correct.) French being spoken in 26 countries is second (I.V. Chernov: 37 countries), Arabic being spoken in 21 countries (I.V. Chernov: 24) is third. Spanish being an official language in 22 countries comes fourth (both scholars agree on this figure)110, followed by Russian, Portuguese, German and Chinese. Official recognition of a language in a country that is not the country of its origin is often (if not always) perceived as a sign of social de-ethnicization, or, to be more precise, a factor of probable de-ethnicization. This was the case in India, where English was proclaimed one of the official languages, along with Hindi. English helped to eliminate possible ethnic clashes based on linguistic grounds. However, in many cases, the introduction of a foreign language (in most cases former imperial language) as an official language in a former colony causes lingual imperialism, lingual genocide and other linguaphobic phenomena. However, authorities tend to abide by their decisions regarding the former imperial language, seeing it as a key

34

to stability and maintenance of relations with the world, the global culture, education, science and Information and communications technology (ICT). The military and political distribution of power across the world has had a significant, if not crucial impact on the global distribution of languages. For example, the opening of the American air base, “Manis” in Kyrgyzstan caused the expansion of the English language in the country. To a certain extent, military power and considerable political resources have secured global leadership for the five languages of the nuclear states and permanent UN Security Council members. The inequality of these five languages was clearly revealed, even on such a level. They appear in the following order: English, considered native to the UK and the U.S.; Chinese, due to the increasing power of China; Russian, only in third place due the narrowing of its language distribution area and its “numeric force” as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc; and French, with all the efforts of France to expand its distribution area worldwide. The military force of the Spanish-speaking world cannot compare to any permanent member of the UN Security Council. Undoubtedly, the military factor remains important in the modern world. Neither the UN resolution nor the objections of the majority of countries, including members of the UN Security Council could stop the last “war for democracy” in Iraq that was initiated by the Anglo-American coalition. The question is whether such inactivity or weak, ineffective response by the international community to heated regional conflicts is triggered merely by the acknowledgement of the U.S. and the U.K. military power or as a result of other influence mechanisms. In the age of globalization, military power seems to be cancelled out by economic indicators that acquire the same significance as nuclear weapons during the era of bipolar international relations. Thus, the economic factor is one of the key factors influencing the global linguistic hierarchy. It is usually calculated as the sum of the Gross National Products (GNP) of the countries united through a common native language. English as an undoubted leader is followed by German, Spanish, French, Chinese and Arabic. However, one more essential indicator has to be included in the further analysis of the economic standard. The study of the “Gross Language Product”111 was suggested by Lord Watson; President of the International English Speaking Union, famous British politician and academic. Watson states that, since we live in an era of economic globalization, linguistic influence has to be analyzed in terms of language use in the world’s largest MNCs since they are conductors of globalization. Taking into consideration the turnover of the MNCs, the “share of the English language” accounts for 5.2 billion British pounds. The Japanese language comes second with 2.9 billion pounds, German is third with 1.7

35

billion pounds and Spanish is fourth with 1.2 billion112. Many researchers point out that the share of the Spanish sector has been growing extensively. The main reason for this is the dynamism of the Spanish-speaking part of Latin America and its developing economy with a number of global political actors, in particular with the European Union. Economic basis is one of the components of the hispanophonic “global project”, which will be analyzed in detail in the third chapter. English is again the leading language in terms of language status, i.e., the use of the language as the official language of the United Nations or other international political and economic organizations. In this hierarchy, Spanish loses slightly to French and comes third. It is followed by Chinese, Arabic and German. However, it must be acknowledged that the economic power of the country affects the use of its language in various working groups, committees and commissions. In the beginning of the 21st century, the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, under constraint from the German government, had to abandon the rule of using two languages (English and the language of the Presidency of the EU Council) during the meetings of the interministerial committee. Madrid’s similar attempts regarding the Spanish language were unsuccessful. Likewise, Helsinki rejected the claim of Rome to treat the Italian language the same way as German. One of the language “outward image” indicators is its use in science and book printing. According to the latest data, English is the leading language used in more than 70% of academic papers cited worldwide113. This global promotion of the English language has become obvious during the Frankfurt Book Fair. At present, the annual global book trade turnover accounts for ca. 50 billion pounds with most of the printed products published in English114. Unfortunately, Spanish is only tenth in this category. However, its share is expected to rise since the number of publications in Spanish has been steadily increasing in the USA. This policy takes into account the fact that the geographical distribution of Spanish in the USA is so wide, that Spanish becomes the second language (after English) in North America. Internet and innovative technologies that serve informatization purposes in the era of globalization are gaining increasing importance. The impact of the electronic means of communication on human civilization is comparable to the emergence of writing or the invention of the printing press. The Internet based form of communication that emerged from this progress, has had a crucial effect on human lives and, undoubtedly, on the development of languages. Internet is a virtual world of verbal communication, which occurs on both mono-ethnic and multi-ethnic levels. These new communication channels are not dependent on geographical

36

factors and have radically changed the very essence of verbal contact115. While the language development factor in the real world is the concentration of the native speakers, the situation in the virtual world is utterly different; the actual distance between native speakers has no significance as long as they have access to the Internet. Besides, the virtual existence of languages has several other advantages. Languages on the web are able to actively function since all online communication is language based. Distance learning has since become a noteworthy phenomenon. In addition, virtual space facilitates communication between various diasporas that are scattered around the world. For example, native speakers of the Mari language, living in Finland and Estonia, are only able to use their written language on the Internet116. Another indisputable advantage of the Internet is the possibility to evade government regulation of the language policy. For instance, the federal government of the Russian Federation banned the use of any non-Cyrillic writing systems in the official languages of the Russian Federation. However, Tatar Diasporas use the Latin script (along with Arabic and Cyrillic systems) on the Internet despite current legislation117. The modern world has created a virtual linguistic global image with its own language hierarchy118, which affects the general status of languages. In theory, there cannot be any language discrimination on the Internet. However, in practice, the situation is quite different. According to the statistics, English, Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, French, German, Korean, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, Swedish and Danish are the most common languages on the web. They own ca. 88% of the virtual space, leaving no more than 12%119 for other languages. The prevailing English language is used in 36.6% of all Internet communications120 and on more than 214 million web pages. Spanish with 3% of the web space comes fifth after English, Japanese, German and Chinese. However, the presence of Spanish on the web is expected to expand, especially in the context of the AIESAD web project, (Ibero-American Association of Distance Education Universities). The amount of Spanish web resources has been steadily increasing. It is estimated that by 2009 the percentage of the total amount of web documents in Spanish will reach 30%121. Even though English remains the most dominate language in the global virtual space, the increasing share of other languages, primarily Spanish and Chinese, reveals the presence of linguistic pluralism on the web. In addition, cross-language phenomena such as linguistic genocide, monolingualism and linguaphobia cannot be applied to the Internet due to its mobility. According to the research, the members of the “global language club” are English, Spanish, Chinese, German, French, Japanese, Arabic, Hindi, Russian and Portuguese. In most parameters English remains the leading

37

language in the modern linguistic hierarchy. However, the modern linguapolitical space is multidimensional, and many languages tend to oppose the general hegemony of English, thus pointing out the conflict of linguistic existence. In this context, S. Huntington’s research model from his famous study on the “clash of civilizations” can be transformed into the “clash of languages”. Language differences can often be indicators of a conflict both on international and national levels122. Many scholars agree that the conflict scale depends on how similar or different the languages are. For example, there has been a lot of discussion regarding the possibilities for close cooperation between the romance-speaking nations represented by the Hispanophone, the Lusophone, the Francophone and the Italianspeaking world. In this case, common historical and linguistic origin, similar word-stock, grammatical structure, morphology; and the syntax and phonetics of Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and French have the role of an integration factor. Huntington writes that social and political leaders are less inclined to see a threat in people who they think they understand. They tend to trust them due to the kinship of language, values, laws, and religion123. Therefore, the chances for a conflict between these language areas is much less likely than, for example, a national conflict between the Spanish language and Euskara, the Basque language. According to various linguists, Euskara is a unique language that has nothing in common with the Romance languages and in some way resembles ancient Georgian124. One of the key factors in the conflict between the Basque communities and the Spanish authorities is that the language becomes a disintegration tool and has a negative effect on the Hispanophone. Language cannot be separated from a particular society. It is a civilizational value, a product of the nation’s historical development. Therefore, the term “linguistic conflict” is rather arbitrary, since the clash does not occur between the languages, but between the native speakers of these languages. As mentioned in the first section of the study, Language influences its native speakers and imposes its system of values upon them. Language is a conductor of the nation’s culture. As a rule, the most severe conflicts in the international arena occur between the representatives of different countries with different languages and consequently different civilizational values. Thus, conflicts do not occur merely because of language differences, but largely through languages. Indeed, languages with similar historical civilizational values only experience “soft” clashes in the international arena. A number of academics, in particular B. Wharf, mention the “European-American” (or Central European) language125. European languages reflect European culture; therefore, Wharf combined them into one group, which he called SAE or “Standard Average European”126. Consequently, one should take

38

into account the fact that according to the European Identity theory, there is a common European civilization with a common set of cultural values resulting in a common view of the world. The fact that English remains its core language does not eliminate the chance of linguistic conflicts within Europe. However, taking into consideration common European values, these conflicts will take a mild form. As a result, Spanish and French, despite the rigid statements made by the authorities, will oppose English within the European Union in a relatively mild way. According to Huntington, languages that represent different civilizations will face English the hard way. These languages embody utterly opposite values and are able to trigger much more complex and serious conflicts. The analysis of Huntington’s concept “clash of civilizations” exposes the conflict of linguistic existence. However, such conflicts can be avoided in cases of historical and territorial language vicinity, a “language kinship”, which becomes a universal process in the context of globalization. According to D. Crystal127, R. Morin128, R. Phillipson129, J. Rothkopf130 and A. Watson131, a shift towards one universal language that can integrate humans into its framework of values may be another solution for conflict prevention. These representatives of the Anglo-American School state that English is the only language that can claim the status of a universal meta-language, minimizing the risk of lingua-political conflicts and becoming the manifestation of a united globalized political world map. There are many scenarios for the development of the lingua-political world map. The most common scenario is associated with the English language. Indeed, the current dominance of the English language can be compared with the spread of literacy in Europe. Only 30% of Europeans were literate in the 17th century. By the end of the 19th century literacy became an important job requirement. Today, an illiterate person becomes an outcast. English, in its role of the global language, has transformed monolingualism into “illiteracy”132. According to N.E. Gronskaya, “in the near future the monolinguistic world will be replaced by the world of global-lingualism and will require the knowledge of a standard global language”133. D. Crystal, J. Fishman, A. Watson and many other scholars see the future of globalization exclusively under the auspices of the English language. According to them, Global English is the only candidate for the role of a global communication language. I.V. Chernov mentions that super-central English has become hyper-central134. D. Crystal notes that English has accumulated its power due to a number of historical, geographical and socio-cultural factors as well as a result of the political and military influence of the English- speaking world135. According to N.E. Gronskaya136, the two factors that promote the “power” of the English

39

language in the modern world are an extremely high number of English native speakers, since English remains an official or semi-official language in all of the former British colonies, and its “marketable image”137, since a knowledge of English offers great business opportunities or even a career in international politics. Knowledge of English is a requirement for the employees of the Deutsche Bank in Paris, since English is the language of the corporate business138. English is the official language of the European Central Bank, although the UK is not a member of the European Monetary Union. These examples demonstrate that even modern Europe yields to global-lingualism, despite certain attempts to oppose its lingua-political schemes. English becomes the de facto language of the united Europe; 85% of EU officials speak English. In March 2006, Jacques Chirac, the President of France was outraged by one of France’s leading manufacturers, who delivered a presentation in English. In response to the president’s reaction the rapporteur countered that the English language had long become the language of global economy, which France was a part of. These examples demonstrate that thanks to its valuable consumer qualities, the English language is becoming a successfully sold product. According to I.V. Chernov, “English, like oil, is one of the key resources, and has its shareholders, too.139” In 1898, Bismarck said that the expansion of English in North America would have a decisive impact on the development of the world140. The Chancellor claimed that the English language would be the power attribute of the Anglo-American bloc. The expansion of the Anglophone today is a tacit doctrine of the British and American official linguistic policies. The Anglicization and Americanization of the world are a part of the aforementioned process. One of the most remarkable aspects of this phenomenon is related to the learning of English as a foreign language in the world. The number of people choosing English as a foreign language ranges from 750 million to one billion. According to A. Watson, the English language will finally conquer China141 in 30 years’ time, which will allow Anglophone to enter an entirely new “hyper-global” level. David Rothkopf, head of the Kissinger Institute, notes that the world is approaching the united Anglo-American standards and adopting the values of the Anglosphere, which bind the world together142. Robert Phillipson has even introduced the concept of “linguistic imperialism”143 in regard to the propagation of the English language. It represents cultural, educational and scientific imperialism and forms a permanent “global world order”144. In summary, many scholars define the English language as the preferred “working” language of the “global village”. Queen Elizabeth II referred to English as the “golden thread” that unites the scattered “global web”. However, a large number of researchers in the field of global lingua-political processes

40

do not consider “globalization under the auspices of the English language” a serene scenario. The greatest concern is that English could threaten the diversity of national languages, “simplify” the culture of different nations and impose Anglo-American viewpoints and values. This culture, which is reflected in the language, can absorb all other cultures. C. Hagège noted that the lethal threat that faces the world languages of today bears the face of the English language145. Consequently, the urge for Hispanophone, Francophone and Lusophone to oppose English is directly linked to the protection of their cultural diversity. As a potential organization similar to OIF (International Organisation of La Francophonie), Hispanophone, has a chance to become a candidate for the leadership among similar lingua-political movements. Chapter 3 will contain detailed comments and arguments supporting this statement. The prospect of the English language becoming the sole language of international communication raises concerns related to such linguistic phenomena as pidgin and lingua franca. Scholars opposing globalization under the auspices of a single language believe that this phenomenon may lead to the formation of simplified language forms. Many scholars are also concerned that English will first become the universal lingua franca and then turn into a global pidgin, which will lead to the degradation of the entire global culture. In linguistics, lingua franca is the language of interethnic communication that has had the historic role of the intermediary language. Lingua franca or Sabir was formerly spoken in the Mediterranean region146. Austrian linguist H. Schuchardt defined lingua franca as a mixed language that originated in the Middle Ages as a product of communication between the Romance and Arabic (later Turkish) native speakers. When the French conquered Algeria in 1830, lingua franca was still so widely used there that a special dictionary had to be compiled for the French corps. Lingua franca was an auxiliary language, complementing native languages, yet it existed in Algeria in its original form until approximately the end of the 19th century. In the modern world, lingua franca stands for a hybrid form of an international language, an intermediary language of interethnic communication. However, I.V. Chernov claims that in the course of history lingua franca can be transformed into a “living” language, but only through a pidgin stage147. Pidgin is a mixed language that developed historically as a result of colonization and is used by indigenous population in an attempt to communicate with “strangers” in their own language. This was often due to the fact that “the strangers” were reluctant to learn the language of the indigenous population. Pidgin is a language with a very simple grammar and limited vocabulary. Due to its simplicity, the use of pidgin is restricted

41

to a narrow range of communication situations. A large number of pidgins appeared in the era of the great geographical discoveries and colonization in the 16th century. These pidgins developed from Portuguese, Spanish and French. The first English-based pidgin originated in North America in the course of communication between the white settlers and the natives. Similar pidgins were later developed in China, West Africa and Australia. There are examples of pidgins that developed from the Russian language, such as Taimyr, Amur and Kyakhta, yet the majority is based on English and French. Some pidgins were developed from non-European languages, such as Língua Geral (“general language”) in Brazil, which is based on the South American Tupi-Guarani languages148. One of the most “dangerous” pidgins in the world is Spanglish, the simplified combination of English and Spanish, which is more and more frequently used for international communication in the USA. Certain American political scientists and linguists expect Spanglish to be transformed into a new “living” language within the next 50-100 years. Indeed, this prediction and the phenomenon of Spanglish itself are some of the most negative consequences of cultural intertwining. They can cause irreparable damage to global lingua-political movements, in particular Hispanophone. A combination of English, Malay and Chinese is called Singlish. It became such a concern for Singapore that Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father and the leader of independent Singapore for more than thirty years, made a categorical statement in 1999 that Singlish had become an obstacle to the economic development of Singapore and had to give way to pure English. Goh Chok Tong, Yew’s successor and current Prime Minister demanded that schools raise the standards of teaching and learning of English and initiated the “Speak Good English” movement149. However, the result was not as successful as expected. Singlish still remains in use, mainly in the mixed population areas characterized by close inter-ethnic contacts. In this case, pidgin becomes native for a group of people, expands its functionality and subsequently turns into a creole language. This way, several American pidgins continued to exist as creoles, e.g. Gullah in the coastal region of South Carolina and Sranantongo in Suriname. The creole languages of Louisiana, Haiti, West Indies, Mauritius and Reunion originated from French. Papiamento, spoken on Curaçao, as well as several creoles that are spoken in the Philippines, originated from Spanish. If the current Spanglish trend continues, Spanglish is very likely to become one of the largest Creole languages and have a strong impact on the lingua-political situation in both of the Americas and linguaphonic trends worldwide. Thus, pidginization poses a threat to the global lexical identity and creates the danger of “language erosion”150. These processes are very often linked to the English language and global anglicanization.

42

The main reason is the leading role of the English-speaking world in the informational, economic and scientific development. Many terms first appear in English and are then imported by all the other languages. The English invasion of other languages has been continually gaining momentum. An example of a Russian-published newspaper in New York demonstrates the state of the Russian language within the Russian-speaking community in the USA and the possible future of the Russian language within 50-70 years151. The text of the ads mainly consists of transcribed English words instead of the equivalent Russian words. The transcribed words are italicized in the following examples. «Продаю рэкс для флимаркета» (Selling racks for flea market), «Ищу работу бебиситора или хаускипера» (Looking for a babysitter or housekeeper job) or «Сдается дом. 2 bedroom, garage. Бейсмент с отдельным входом»152 (house for rent, 2 bedrooms, garage, basement, separate entrance). I.V. Chernov wrote that, according to globalization opponents, the world will speak American English (“the language of the Masters”) and pidgin English (“the language of slaves”, marginalized people with no social needs and opportunities to learn the standard language)153 in a hundred years’ time. Many researchers share the concern that the English language might become the foundation for a “global pidgin”. This is a common perspective among French linguists and political scientists. However, pidgins develop only within certain areas under the influence of historical factors. Therefore, even if Spanglish gains geopolitical influence and becomes one of the key figures in the global political future, it will never be able to become the leading international intermediary language. English, in turn, becomes a global lingua franca, a hyper-language. At the same time, global English changes under the influence of cultures that adopt it and acquires Latin American, Asian, African, Pakistani, Indian and other forms. English native speakers often do not understand such “newspeaks”, e.g. the Singlish language in Singapore. Ultimately, English might not become the global language of mankind. The goal of this study is to analyze the different views and scenarios regarding the future of lingua-political and global linguistic relations and point out various possibilities for English to become a “super-global language.” One of the alternative viewpoints is related to artificial languages. It is always an advantage for a nation when its language is used in the intermediary role. This fact has given rise to numerous attempts to create an artificial international language, which would not favor any particular nation but become an asset of all mankind. The first known attempt to create such a language belongs to the Greek physician Galen, 2nd century AD. There have been nearly a

43

thousand projects aiming at the creation of an artificial language in the history of mankind. However, none of the languages were able to become a truly universal language, a “code of civilization”. The first “recognized” artificial language, Volapük was developed by J.M, Schleyer in Germany in 1879. Schleyer wrote that the idea to create an international language came to him after a conversation with a German peasant, whose son had traveled to study in America. The semiliterate peasant could not send a letter to his son, since the U.S. mail rejected letters with addresses written in German. Schleyer invented a new alphabet for his language based on European languages154. The established International Academy of Volapük numbered nearly one million registered “Volapük speakers”155. Despite that, Volapük never became widespread due to its extreme grammatical complexity and fell into disuse in the middle of the 20th century. Interlingua, Occidental, Ido, Novial and Omo are examples of other artificial languages that were used in practice yet never became widespread. Esperanto was the most successful and popular of all auxiliary languages. It was developed by a Polish doctor, L.L. Zamenhof in 1887. His idea was to create a language that was simple and easy to learn. Its grammar and vocabulary were based on Romance languages with “patches” of Slavic and Germanic origin. Various literary works, newspapers and magazines are published in Esperanto. The Universal Esperanto Association has been organizing annual congresses since 1905. A resolution in support of Esperanto was passed by UNESCO in 1954. Esperanto is an official language of the International Postal Association156. An “Esperanto Group in the European Parliament” was established in autumn 2003. It studies the use of Esperanto as an international language for solving complex linguistic problems within the EU institutions”157. The supporters of political development, with help of artificial languages, produce numerous arguments in favor of their opinion. The most common arguments are based on the idea that an international artificial language retains all of the advantages of a global language, but stays “ethnically neutral” towards all cultures and does not become a “conductor” for any of them. Besides, it is a lot easier to learn in comparison to any national language. However, the fact that no artificial language can claim to become universal is the objective reality of global politics today. It is difficult to create a language of international communication, which is truly “easy” and will be equally accessible worldwide. For example, Esperanto presents a big challenge for Asians and Africans. Another point of view suggests that the language that is pretending to become the macro-intermediary language of the globalized world has to already be an international intermediary language in order to acquire necessary

44

political and economic influence tools. That is why all attempts to create a truly universal artificial language have been ineffective until now. In addition, all scenarios for the future lingua- political world under the auspices of a “global artificial language” appear rather utopian. The model of cultural diversity offers a different perspective regarding the future of global politics. Different theories of international relations see linguistic diversity as a subject of political science and a source of political controversy and difficulties in integration processes. These difficulties are the language situation in Eastern Europe, the status of regional and minor languages on a global scale, difficulties related to the integration of immigrants, the problem of biological diversity; and the protection of indigenous languages, which are threatened with extinction158. It is important to point out the work of such international institutions as the UN, including its specialized agency UNESCO; the Council of Europe and the European Union. According to estimates by the special commission of UNESCO, 20-30 languages worldwide become extinct each year. In case this trend continues, the number of languages will be reduced by 90% within the next one hundred years159. According to international organizations, the only way to prevent this situation is to protect multilingualism and the cultural and linguistic diversity in the modern world. However, such a development model of the lingua-political world map is similarly idealized. The European Union will not be able to operate with more than 20 working languages, despite the official doctrine of “multilingualism” and “multilingualism”. This doctrine is aimed at “unity in diversity”, “respect for cultural, religious and linguistic diversity”; prohibition of discrimination, including language discrimination, and equal status for official languages of the EU (The language policy of the EU will be analyzed in Chapter 3). Even the UN does not always follow its own declarations in practice160. A conference on cultural diversity within the Forum on Information Society was held by UNESCO in 2000. It stressed that “the preservation of linguistic pluralism in the context of globalization is one of the main goals of the international community”. At the same time, the conference was held in English and French only. Other UNESCO languages, particularly Spanish, were ignored despite numerous proposals by the Spanish delegation. Such discrimination of Spanish as one of the most commonly used languages reveals language discrimination on various levels. Numerous cases of the “violation of language rights” within international organizations bear evidence of the downfall of national languages. They indicate that the concept of “global multilingualism” developed by the adherents of political idealism will remain nothing more than their “romantic view of the world”.

45

David Graddol161 has made one of the most realistic predictions regarding the future lingua-political situation in the world. The British scholar believes that even though English may still play an important role among other languages in the future, its prospected popularity is overestimated. Despite his statement that half of the world population will speak English by 2015, Graddol concludes that the “global significance” of the English language will be reduced. Demographic factors will have a great impact on this situation. By 2050 the world population is estimated to be 11 billion people. Most of that growth will come from non-English-speaking countries162. Graddol believes that the number of people who speak most European languages will decrease, with the exception of Spanish, which will have a bright future. According to Graddol, English, Spanish, Chinese, Arabic and Hindi will form an oligarchy of global languages by 2050. Even if English is able retain its leadership, it will be no more than the “first among equals”163. In this context the study of “Hispanic” political and linguaphonic trends, i.e., processes within the Hispanophone and the role of Spanish in the future “global language club”, is relevant to the author. The central concepts of the linguistic dimension of world politics are the “global language club” and the “global language hierarchy” where English is the leading language. Many languages will “oppose” linguistic globalization under the auspices of the English language. The conflict of lingua-political existence will continue, but the clash between the languages will take a mild form. The result of globalization will be the influential development of some languages and marginalization of others. D. Graddol’s prediction regarding the “oligarchy” of world languages and the reduced role of English is remarkable in the futurological context of international relations. The author suggests that only several world languages will remain in the future. These languages, including English, Spanish, Chinese, Arabic and Hindi will be common to large groups of people. Russian can also be added to this list, since Russia has an active policy regarding the distribution of the Russian language, i.e., Russophone. The “numerical” and “economic” power of the Spanish language will increase significantly. The role of Hispanophone in this process will be essential. Language is not only a unique civilizational value, but also an important political resource. This resource plays a major role in the formation of the country’s “outward image”. Thus, the phenomenon of foreign policy where language is the key tool will help to define a linguistic dimension of global politics. The next section of the study will provide analysis of such concepts as “linguistic policy”, “glottopolitics” and “language geostrategy”. The key conclusion regarding language promotion practices through foreign policy of different countries will touch upon the plurality of linguaphonic processes in the

46

modern world. These processes represent the cultural, geographical and primarily political language “space”. The author will pay special attention to the language policies of the Spanish-speaking countries and Hispanophone, which has become the major lingua-cultural trend in global politics. 1.3. Linguistic Policies in the Age of Globalization. The Significance of Lingua-political Movements Humanity lives in the age of globalization. Its correlation with language, language development processes and lingua-political relations is multifaceted. Regardless of evaluative positions, the very nature of globalization includes information and communication components, which are essentially inconceivable outside of a certain language environment and language means164. Therefore, the link between globalization and the linguistic aspect of human life on the global, regional, national and local levels in the modern world is indisputable165. All these levels are somehow related to the linguistic policy of individual countries or international organizations that are linked within various international, regional or national institutions. The linguistic or language policy of any country is part of the complex system of its national interests. National interests of a modern state are usually defined by the three of following categories: 1) nature and geopolitics, 2) cultural politics and legal politics, 3) technology and economics166. Scholars believe that language policy is only included within the cultural, political or socio-cultural development factors of a nation or a state. It is the author’s belief that language is a structural element of all these categories. After all, the structure of a nation or a state is as multifaceted as an “abstract pyramid”167. In this context, language becomes a national attribute. It is not only a product of social relations, but also a multifunctional component that is widely used in all social sectors. Language can serve as a tool in international affairs as well as in foreign and internal policies. That is why the language factor has to be considered on all levels and in all areas of public policy planning. Language is a governmental tool that expresses both the public and state will. It is understandable why the state is interested in carrying out certain actions in relation to the language or languages spoken by its population. The language perspective in the countries with a mono-ethnic population is mono-oriented, while in the countries with various ethnic groups the governmental approach toward languages is either monolingual or multicultural. This means that every language related action of the government or any other political, including

47

international actors, becomes a part of language policy. According to the Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary, language policy is “a set of ideological principles and practical measures to address language problems within the society and the state”168. Language policy can be very diverse. In general, national linguistic policy is a part of the foreign and internal educational, scientific and national policies. National language policy can be divided into several models: monolingualism, bilingualism and multilingualism, according to the status functions of the language(s), and unifying or pluralistic, according to the form of language laws. Monolingual policy is aimed at turning a dominant language into a national language throughout a country. According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Russian is the national language in all of Russia the same way as French is the national language according to the Constitution of the French Republic. The bilingual or multilingual policies aim at giving two (bilingualism) or multiple (multilingualism) languages the official or national status. Before presenting examples that reflect each of these internal linguistic systems, it is important to mention the issues related to the interpretation of “official language” and “national language”. In 1953, UNESCO authorities proposed to separate the terms “national language” and “official language”169. National language is the language that has an “integrating and consolidating function within political, social, economic and cultural spheres of a nation, serving as a national symbol. Official language is the language of the government, law and justice”170. The term “titular language” can be introduced in this context. The name of this type of language corresponds or relates to the name of the ethnic group or the peoples, after which a particular political, territorial or governmental entity was named. When a country proclaims a certain language official or national it turns its language policy towards linguistic homogenization of society. Other languages become minor, thus causing a negative reaction from any neighboring countries where such languages have the state-forming or titular status. A striking example is Russia’s attitude towards the perspective of the Baltic countries on the Russian language and Russian-speaking population. This issue complicates Russia’s relations with Estonia and Latvia. Moscow has repeatedly tried to draw the attention of the EU towards the linguistic and ethno-political situation in these countries. Russia has been criticizing their policies in the UN, UNESCO and other international organizations, which became the cause of an overall negative atmosphere of international relations. The best example of a language policy based on equal and fair multilingualism is Switzerland. According to the Swiss model, its national languages are four historical languages: German, French, Italian and Rhaeto-Romance, while its official languages are German, French and

48

Italian. Multilingual (mostly bilingual) language policy is a system with two or more official languages such as Canada with English and French being official languages or Finland with Finnish and Swedish. Many Southern States of the USA carry out the policy of bilingualism. In the long term, the emergence of Hispanic schools, the right for Chicanos to vote in their native Spanish language and the rapid growth of Hispanic population can turn Spanish into another official language in most U.S. states. A number of scholars including the Spanish and American academics Garcia Delgado, Gomez Dakal and Lara Fernando share a bold and even “radical” opinion that Spanish in the USA will turn from the language of the minorities into the language of the majorities in 50-100 years. In fact, the knowledge of Spanish has played an important role in the U.S. presidential campaigns in 2000, 2004 and 2008, since the Hispanic population is a substantial part of the electorate. According to a number of American political consultants, in particular Andrew Wilson, George W. Bush “won” the support of the “Latinos” in part by making appeals in Spanish or using Spanish words in his statements. The language policies of Spain and Ibero-American countries are predominantly based on monolingualism (Spanish is the only official language in most of the Ibero-American countries) and multilingualism (Spain, Bolivia, Guatemala), with a few exceptions, such as Peru (official languages are Spanish and Quechua) that follow the bilingual model. The unifying model of state language policy based on language laws seeks to promote one common language171 that will replace all other languages. The unifying model in language legislation is related to monolingual language policy. Numerous scholars note that the implementation of such language policy is most likely to cause language conflicts within the country, which will affect the whole policy implementation process. Most of the former Soviet Republics use this one-component model of language legislation, which in most cases does not account for the ethnic composition of the population, nor the various social factors. It may be true that the monolingual ideal has provoked discrimination of minor language groups. A clear illustration of this situation is the “linguistic discomfort” of the Russian (25 million)172 and the Russian-speaking (5 million) communities in the CIS countries. There they represent a substantial linguistic group alongside the titular nations in such republics as Moldova, Estonia, Ukraine and Latvia173. It is a fact that the rights of the Russian-speaking population in these republics are being neglected. This results in severe language conflicts, such as in Moldova, or conflicts that involve civil discrimination of the Russian-speaking residents. Apparently, the pluralistic model of linguistic legislation has become the most appropriate language policy model that can be applied to countries consisting of more than one nation

49

and one language culture. This model relates to the policy of bilingualism and multilingualism, which allows for a number of languages to bear legal status, thus reducing the conflict risk within linguistic existence. Linguistic policy of any country is intended to control matters related to making the language or languages national or official and the legal position of the language in the social system, which is established by national legislation and language laws. Its main objective is also to create an international “image” of the language that will promote it abroad, attract foreign language learners and protect the linguistic rights of citizens, diasporas and ethnic minorities that use the language outside the country. “Glottopolitics” studies the phenomenon of language policy. D. Alves offers a working definition of glottopolitics as the doctrine, practice or discipline that studies the relationship of states or nations with one another on the regional and multilateral levels in terms of the language being a modern tool within the international community174. An example of such contradictions is the problem of official and working languages within intergovernmental organizations, the choice of languages for the regional commercial and economic integration. In this context, international institutions and countries have their own language policies as actors in the modern global politics. The global definitions of the “three generations” of universal human rights hardly mention language rights. The concept of language rights has emerged not so long ago and is not yet fully defined175. This is largely due to the fact that the definition of language rights is rather problematic and contradictory, since language rights can be individual and collective. The UN and its specialized agencies contribute to the international joint efforts to identify these rights. Language rights were included in the basic human rights after the Second World War on account of the UN. Articles 1 and 55 of the UN Charter, as well as the International Bill of Human Rights (Article 2 (1) UDHR and Articles 2 (2) and 26 of the ICCPR)176 urge the Member States to respect the fundamental principles of linguistic equality and non-discrimination. Issues of language development are the focus of UNESCO, a specialized organization within the UN. Today UNESCO is an important tool that controls linguistic relations on various levels. The UNESCO Education Sector includes a language department that develops and implements the LINGUAPAX and LINGUAUNI projects. These projects address the problems related to language education. Language education is considered the main practical approach to global culture177. In this context, it is important to mention the actions taken by UNESCO to promote these projects in Spain and the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America. UNESCO helps establish and implement the language

50

policy in the Ibero-American countries based on acceptance of other cultures and aimed at the preservation and development of national and foreign languages. All Ibero-American countries implement such language policy de jure, but de facto, certain Spanish-speaking countries, especially Spain; have been constantly infringing on the rights of the population that uses national languages of the provinces. Spanish authorities in Catalonia and the Basque province closed more than a dozen newspapers in Catalan and Basque and rejected a number of master’s programs in these languages just a year ago. Despite the fact that the policies of other Ibero-American countries are based on the assimilation and differentiation of the legal status of minority languages, the discrimination of the minor indigenous languages in these countries has been ongoing. This contradicts the UNESCO policy of protecting indigenous languages. As stated in the previous section, despite the fact that the UNESCO policies in all member countries aim at supporting linguistic diversity and multilingual education, the general linguistic programs of these countries promote one titular language or several “major” languages that displace the minority languages in one way or another. The involvement of the European Union has to be taken into account when analyzing the language policies of international organizations. Supranational lingua-political programs have been developed within the EU. The most relevant question today is the development of a common European language policy based on such key documents as the Framework strategy for multilingualism (2005), the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2000), the Treaty of Rome (1957), the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) and the EU Language Charter (1958). The main standards of the European language policy are to establish the official language concepts of “unity in diversity”, “respect for cultural, religious and linguistic diversity”, to prohibit discrimination on various grounds, including language, and to secure the equal status of the official EU languages178. Thus, the EU linguistic policy is based on “multilingualism” with the main focus being on education and the involvement of the European institutions in this area. One of the long-term objectives of the European Commission is to develop “individual multilingualism”, i.e., when every European citizen has mastered two foreign languages. Various educational programs such as LINGUA, Socrates, and Leonardo da Vinci provide support in studying foreign languages and linguistic diversity. Another milestone in the EU language policy was the European Year of Languages 2001. Its main objectives were to promote language learning in Europe and to conduct a series of large-scale Eurobarometer surveys on the topic of “Europeans and languages”179. However, despite the official policy of “multilingualism”,

51

discrimination of certain official languages within the EU has been observed by a number of scholars. In 2002 during the EU Summit in Copenhagen, Ana Palacio; Spanish foreign minister referred to various infringements upon the Spanish language, whereby various documents were not translated into Spanish, etc180. Alan Watson also comes to the conclusion that there exists a hierarchy of linguistic relationships within the EU with English being in the leading position181. European identity, as a feeling of belonging to the “European nation” does not yet exist. The linguistic nature of the European identity has not been defined either. At the same time, the future of the European Union is going to be determined by its representative languages and the languages used for future development in Europe. The summarizing conclusion is that the language policies of international organizations are generally aimed at the preservation of linguistic diversity and multilingualism. However, a language hierarchy is formed within these international institutions causing discrimination against a number of languages. The work of international institutions is based on the unity of various countries where language plays an important role. Language is a system of representations; a socially shared worldview. Language plays an important role in the creation of collective consciousness and the symbol of collective identity. Due to this symbolic function, language is the key element in the process of collective integration and formation of collective identity. The examples of this formation are the modern linguaphonic movements such as Anglophone, Francophone, Lusophone, Russophone and Hispanophone. These movements aim to promote the countries’ languages as part of their foreign policies and lingua-political planning. Linguaphonic movements are theoretical components of glottopolitics, which focuses on language and culture of a nation and their regional and global significance. Glottopolitics refers to language as a political and status element of a country’s development. Linguaphonic movements are language propagation areas that influence international relations and help establish integration schemes between countries through linguistic affinity and homogeneity. As a rule, linguaphonic movements are based on the historical and civilizational kinship between certain countries sharing the same language, resulting in the formation of the “primordial kinship” phenomenon. In one of the interviews, King Juan Carlos of Spain called the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America “sisters”. In 1989, Brazilian President Jose Sarney addressed the Portuguese-speaking countries using the word “brotherly”182. The very idea of such movements originated through shared culture and history, based on common linguistic background.

52

Anglophone unites the USA, the UK and the former colonies of the British Empire. Francophone unites France and its former colonies overseas, Lusophone – the Portuguese-speaking world, Russophone – the Russianspeaking world and Hispanophone, respectively, – the Spanish-speaking world. These movements are both similar yet different. All movements (although to a different extent) share a main goal to spread their language and strengthen their political significance in the global arena through cultural and linguistic influence. An editorial in Label France magazine said that “Francophone should be limited neither to the protection of its language or languages nor to strengthening of the economic, technical and cultural cooperation between its members. Solidarity between the Frenchspeaking countries should also be political. All Francophone countries must fight for democracy and human rights together, as well as try to prevent conflicts that may involve its members”183. By the end of the first decade of the 21st century Paris fulfilled its goal and turned Francophone into a political, human and civilizational international organization. France promotes the propagation of French in more than 50 countries worldwide and simultaneously achieves its political objectives of reinforcing its authority and influence in the global arena. Based on the findings in the first section of the study, the author comes to the conclusion that the “right” choice of language helps strengthen cultural, as well as the political and economic relations between countries. A shared linguistic space leads to the formation of lingua-cultural, lingua-economic and lingua-political infrastructure within these associations. That is why the member states of the linguaphonic movements pay special attention to language policy and legislation when planning a shared foreign policy. The main difference between the movements is their institutional structure. Francophone and Lusophone have a clear organizational system, which is controlled accordingly by the OIF (International Organisation of La Francophonie) and the Community of Portuguese Language Countries (CPLP). All other movements do not have an official status. Anglophone, Russophone and Hispanophone are not represented by special organizations that unite their member states. They represent movements that reflect general language policy trends shared by a group of countries or regions. Their main objective is to maintain the high status of the native language in the global arena, which promotes and implements political and economic interests. Lingua-political organizations that were established on linguistic and cultural kinship, as well as mutual geopolitical interests are not evenly represented on the global, regional or subnational levels. They affect the development of the global community and are more or less active in the emerging of a transnational environment within global politics. These

53

numerous organizations include both intergovernmental (the International Organization of La Francophonie, the Community of Portuguese Language Countries) and nongovernmental (the Russkiy Mir Foundation, the Cooperation Council of Turkic Speaking States, the International English Speaking Union, etc.) establishments. Both types of organizations tend to reflect the state policies that concern their native language, its usage, protection, propagation, and reinforcement of the international status. The aforementioned relates only to global languages; the members of the club of global languages. Countries aim at developing inherent worldviews and attitudes in foreign countries by means of expanding the political and cultural space of their own language outside their boundaries. Language, as a system of certain communicative social values, is willingly or unwillingly involved in the creation of a holistic interdependent and interactive world order with common principles of democracy and human rights. Linguaphonic structures add complexity and content to the contemporary global system and contribute to the formation of a multipolar world. Both governmental and nongovernmental organizations play an important role in this world by establishing strategic and regional stability and security. In summary, the author has come to the conclusion that linguistic aspect is an integral element of the general policy of a country or any other international actor. It is part of the linguistic dimension of global politics, economics and culture. In this context, linguaphonic movements represent the combined actions of a number of countries that share linguistic policies based on the linguistic and cultural kinship. However, the idea of linguaphonic movements is “...much broader than the foreign policy of a country or even the combined foreign policy of a group of countries...”184 Lingua-political movements are represented by the country unions that focus on a specific language and culture that have become an integral, organic part in the life of a people and its national heritage. Member states within lingua-political movements see the unifying language as a means to develop their own national culture. In this respect, Hispanophone offers a unique experience.

42 Kornilov O. A. Yazykovye kartiny mira kak proizvodnye natsional’nykh mentalitetov. 2-e izdanie, ispr. i dop. – M.: CheRo, 2003. – p. 4. 43 Leont’ev A. A. Osnovy psikholingvistiki.- M.: Smysl,1997 44 Kornilov O. A. Yazykovye kartiny mira kak proizvodnye natsional’nykh mentalitetov. 2-e izdanie, ispr. i dop. – M.: CheRo, 2003. 45 Molodkin A. M. Vzaimodeystvie yazykov raznogo tipa v etnokul’turnom kontekste (yazykovye kontakty v portugaloyazychnoy Afrike) Pod red. akad. MAN VSh L. I. Barannikovoy. – Saratov: Izd-vo Sarat. Un-ta, 2001.

54

46 Lingvisticheskie issledovaniya v kontse XX veka: Sb. obzorov/ Issled. Otdel Yazykoznaniya/ Otv. red. F. M. Berezin.- M., 2000 47 Beugrande R. de The story of Discourse Analysis//Discourse as Structure and Process. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. – London: Thousand Oaks, 1997. – pp. 35-62. 48 Kornilov O. A. Yazykovye kartiny mira kak proizvodnye natsional’nykh mentalitetov. 2-e izdanie, ispr. i dop. – M.: CheRo, 2003. – pp. 4-8. 49 Khantington. S. Stolknovenie tsivilizatsiy/per. s angliyskogo, M.: Izd-vo AST, 2003. – p. 25. 50 ibid, p. 24. 51 ibid, p. 27. 52 Gal’perin P. Ya. Yazykovoe soznanie i nekotorye voprosy vzaimootnosheniya yazyka i myshleniya// Voprosy filosofii. – 1977. - № 4. ; Leont’ev A.A. Osnovy psikholingvistiki.- M.: Smysl, 1997. 53 Leont’ev A. A. Osnovy psikholingvistiki.- M.: Smysl,1997. – p. 178. 54 Kalent’eva T.L. Etnopsikholingvisticheskie issledovaniya yazykovogo soznaniya i obraza mira/Yazykovoe soznanie i obraz mira. Vestnik IGLU/ Otv. red T.L. Kalent’eva. – Irkutsk: IGLU, 2004. № 8. – pp. 44 – 45. 55 ibid, pp. 46-47. 56 Kornilov O. A. Yazykovye kartiny mira kak proizvodnye natsional’nykh mentalitetov. 2-e izdanie, ispr. i dop. – M.: CheRo, 2003. – p. 89. 57 ibid, p. 109. 58 Sepir E. Izbrannye trudy po yazykoznaniyu i kul’turologi. – M., 1993. – p. 261. 59 Uorf B. Otnoshenie norm povedeniya i myshleniya k yazyku. Nauka i yazykoznanie. Lingvistika i logika// Novoe v lingvistiki. – M., 1960. – p. 175. 60 Sepir E. Izbrannye trudy po yazykoznaniyu i kul’turologi. – M., 1993. – p. 117. 61 Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – p. 44. 62 Kornilov O.A. Yazykovye kartiny mira kak proizvodnye natsional’nykh mentalitetov. 2-e izdanie, ispr. i dop. – M.: CheRo, 2003. – pp. 110-111. 63 Kornilov O.A. Yazykovye kartiny mira kak proizvodnye natsional’nykh mentalitetov. 2-e izdanie, ispr. i dop. – M.: CheRo, 2003. – p. 122. 64 Term introduced by Leo Weissenberg (1899-1985) 65 Troshina N.N. Lingvisticheskiy aspekt mezhkul’turnoy kommunikatsii/ Lingvisticheskie issledovaniya v kontse XX veka. Sb. obzorov/ Issledovatel’skiy otdel yazykoznaniya/ Otv. Red. Berezin F. M. – M., 2000. – p. 56. 66 ibid, p. 59. 67 Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – p. 43. 68 Troshina N.N. Lingvisticheskiy aspekt mezhkul’turnoy kommunikatsii/ Lingvisticheskie issledovaniya v kontse XX veka. Sb. obzorov/ Issledovatel’skiy otdel yazykoznaniya/ Otv. Red. Berezin F. M. – M., 2000. – p. 61. 69 Leontovich O.A. Paradoksy mezhkul’turnogo obshcheniya// Yazykovaya lichnost’: aspekty lingvistiki i lingvodidaktiki. – Volgograd, 1999. – p. 81. 70 This phenomenon is analyzed in Paragraf 3, Chapter 1. 71 Fill A. Language and Ecology: Ecolinguistic Perspectives for 2000 and Beyond. – Tokyo, 2000. – p. 20. 72 ibid, p. 21.

55

73 Fill A. Contrastive Ecolinguistics – a New Field for Ploughshares? // Anglistentag 1994 Graz. Proceedings. – Volume XVI. – Tübingen,1995 74 Withers, C.W.J. Towards a history of Geolinguistics in the public sphere, History of Science, 1999. – p. 31. 75 Withers, C.W.J. Towards a history of Geolinguistics in the public sphere, History of Science, 1999. - p. 45. 76 Withers, C.W.J. History and philosophy of geography 2002-2003: language and geography in its place, Progress in Human Geography , 2005. – p. 64 77 Numberto Lópes Morales. La Aventura Del Español en América:Editorial Espasa Calpe, S. A., 2005. – p. 47; Pérez-Díaz V. Sueño y Razón de América Latina: Fundacion ICO. Madrid, 2005. – p. 15; Sepúlveda Isidro. El Sueño de la Madre Patria. Hispanjamericanismo y Nacionalismo: Fundación Carolina. Centro de Estudios Hispanicos e Iberoamericanos, Marcial pons, Ediciones de Historia, S. A. Madrid, 2005. – p. 31. 78 Fishman J. The New Linguistic Order // Foreign Policy.–Winter.–1998-1999 79 Tikhonova N.E. Ekonomika-yazyk-kul’tura (diskussiya) // Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost’. 2001. № 3. pp. 30-40. 80 Pliskevich N.M. Ekonomika-yazyk-kul’tura. K itogam diskussii // Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost’. 2001. № 6. – pp. 51-60. 81 Mukharyamova L. Yazykovoy marketing: napravlenie strategii planirovaniya. http// www.rags.ru/akadem/gos_sl/26-2003/26-2003-64.html 82 Language Marketing // Baker C., Jones S.P. Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon, Philadelphia, Toronto, Johannesburg, 1998. – p. 225. 83 Pugachev V. P., Solov’ev A. I. Vvedenie v politologiyu. – M., 1995. – pp. 7 – 15. 84 Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – p. 11. 85 ibid, p. 14. 86 Gadzhiev K.S. Politicheskaya filosofiya/ Otd-nie ekon. RAN; nauch.-red. Sovet izd-va «Ekonomika». – M.: OAO «Izdatel’stvo «Ekonomika», 1999. – p. 550. 87 Gadzhiev K.S. Politicheskaya filosofiya/ Otd-nie ekon. RAN; nauch.-red. Sovet izd-va «Ekonomika». – M.: OAO «Izdatel’stvo «Ekonomika», 1999. – p. 547. 88 ibid, p. 547. 89 Gadzhiev K.S. Politicheskaya filosofiya/ Otd-nie ekon. RAN; nauch.-red. Sovet izd-va «Ekonomika». – M.: OAO «Izdatel’stvo «Ekonomika», 1999. – pp. 545-554. 90 Lakoff G. Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify War in the Gulf// D. Yallet (ed.) Engulfed in War: Just war and the Persian Gulf. Honolulu, 1991. – pp. 54-56. 91 Chudinov A.P. Natsional’naya mental’nost’ i metaforicheskoe modelirovanie politicheskoy situatsii// Kontseptual’noe prostranstvo yazyka: Sb. nauch trudov/ Otv. red. Prof. E.S. Kubryakova. – Tambov, Izd-vo GGU im. G. R. Derzhavina, 2005. – pp. 363-372. 92 Lakoff G. Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify War in the Gulf// D. Yallet (ed.) Engulfed in War: Just war and the Persian Gulf. Honolulu, 1991. 93 Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – p. 14. 94 Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – p. 30. 95 Universal’nyy atlas mira. – M. «Izdatel’stvo AST», 2006. – p. 250. 96 Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – p. 34. 97 Musorin A.Yu. Osnovy nauki o yazyke – Novosibirsk: Novosibirskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo, 2004. – pp. 40-60.

56

98 Musorin A.Yu. Osnovy nauki o yazyke – Novosibirsk: Novosibirskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo, 2004. – p. 54. 99 ibid, p. 62. 100 The Treaty of Tordesillas was a treaty between Portugal and Spain in 1494 where they agreed to divide up all their colonies along the line that approximately follows the W.4630 meridian. 101 Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – p. 34. 102 V.A. Tishkov. Rekviem po etnosu. Issledovaniya po sotsial’no-kul’turnoy antropologii. – M.: Nauka, 2003. – pp. 64-65. 103 Krasnaya kniga// Vechernee vremya, 20-26.06.2008. 104 M. Kening. Kul’turnoe raznoobrazie i yazykovaya politika// Reshenie natsional’noyazykovykh voprosov v sovremennom mire/ Pod red. Akad. E.P. Chelysheva. – M. – SPb: Zlatoust, 2003. – pp. 9-13. 105 Berdashkevich A.N. Gosudarstvennaya yazykovaya politika http://www.rags.ru/ academ/gos_sl/20-2002/20-2002-30.html 106 Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – pp. 38-43. 107 ibid, p. 38. 108 ibid, p. 42. 109 M.N. Guboglo Mobilizatsionnyy lingvizm. – M.; 1993. 110 Dariu Mureyra de Kashtru Alvesh. Luzofoniya i sodruzhestvo stran portugal’skogo yazyka// Reshenie natsional’no-yazykovykh voprosov v sovremennom mire/ Pod red. Akad. E.P. Chelysheva. – M. – SPb: Zlatoust, 2003. – p. 283; Chernov I. V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – p. 39. 111 Watson A. Jamestown: The Voyage of English. – L: ESU, 2007. – p. 60. 112 Watson A. Jamestown: The Voyage of English. – L: ESU, 2007. – pp. 60-62. 113 Watson A. Jamestown: The Voyage of English. – L: ESU, 2007. – p. 59. 114 A. Chervontsev Angliyskiy yazyk v sovremennom mire/Reshenie natsional’noyazykovykh voprosov v sovremennom mire/ pod red akad. E. P.Chelysheva. – M. – SPb: Zlatoust, 2003. – pp. 44-46. 115 Gronskaya N.E. Virtual’noe prostranstvo yazykovoy politiki: konfliktnost’ lingvisticheskogo sushchestvovaniya// Polis 2004, № 5. – p. 62. 116 ibid, p. 64. 117 Yazyki narodov Rossii v Internete. – http://www.peoples.org.ru/pred.html 118 Harmon A. The Internet Has Spawned a Language of its Own// English, March 1999, № 11. 119 Internet Users by Language. Top 10 Languages Used in Internet. – http://www. internetworld.stats.com/stats.7.html. 120 Internet Users by Language. Top 10 Languages Used in Internet. – http://www. internetworld.stats.com/stats.7.html 121 Morin Regina. Evidence in the Spanish language press of linguistic borrowings of computer and Internet-related terms// Spanish in Context, Volume 3, Number 2, 2006. – pp. 161-179. 122 Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – pp. 47-53. 123 S. Khantington. Stolknovenie tsivilizatsiy/per.s angliyskogo, M.: Izd-vo AST, 2003. – p. 36. 124 Instituto Cervantes. Actas del Congreso de la Lengua Española. Sevilla, 1992.- P. 68.

57

125 Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – p. 50. 126 ibid, p. 51. 127 Crystal D. English as a Global Language. Cambridge University Press. 1997 128 Morin Regina. Evidence in the Spanish language press of linguistic borrowings of computer and Internet-related terms//Spanish in Context, Volume 3, Number 2, 2006. - pp. 98-179 129 Phillipson R. Global English and Local Language Policies: What Denmark Needs. – Language Problems and Language Planning, Vol. 25, № 1, 2001 130 Rothkopf D. In Praise of Cultural Imperialism?/ Foreign Policy, 107, 1997. – pp. 45-46 131 Watson A. Jamestown: The Voyage of English. – L: ESU, 2007. – p. 60. 132 Gronskaya N.E. Virtual’noe prostranstvo yazykovoy politiki: konfliktnost’ lingvisticheskogo sushchestvovaniya// Polis 2004, № 5. – p. 66. 133 ibid, p. 66. 134 Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – p. 59. 135 Crystal D. English as a Global Language. Cambridge University Press. 1997. 136 Gronskaya N. E. Virtual’noe prostranstvo yazykovoy politiki: konfliktnost’ lingvisticheskogo sushchestvovaniya// Polis 2004, № 5. – pp. 63-64. 137 Phillipson R. Global English and Local Language Policies: What Denmark Needs. – Language Problems and Language Planning, Vol. 25, № 1, 2001. 138 French Concerned Globalization Will Lead to English Language Domination, 2001.-Australian Broadcasting Corporation TV Program Transcript, 23.04 http://www.abc. net.au/7.30/content/2001/s281829.htm 139 Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – p. 60. 140 Crystal D. English as a Global Language. Cambridge University Press. 1997. 141 Watson A. Jamestown: The Voyage of English. – L: ESU, 2007. – p. 56. 142 Rothkopf D. In Praise of Cultural Imperialism?/ Foreign Policy, 107, 1997. – pp. 45-46. 143 Phillipson R. Linguistic Imperialism. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. – p. 15. 144 Phillipson R. Language Policy and Linguistic Imperialism/ An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method/ edited by Thomas Ricento: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, 2006. – pp. 153-154. 145 Chernov I. V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – p. 62. 146 Musorin A.Yu. Osnovy nauki o yazyke – Novosibirsk: Novosibirskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo, 2004. – p. 86. 147 Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – pp. 62-68. 148 Atlas yazykov mira. Proiskhozhdenie i razvitie yazykov vo vsem mire. – M.: Lik press, 1998. 149 Yu. Savenkov «Singlish» rezhet slukh//Izvestiya, 5 yanvarya 1999. 150 Kabakchi V. Troyanskiy kon’ posledney revolyutsii/ Yazyk global’nogo rasprostraneniya i nebyvalogo vliyaniya - http://www.kulturagz.ru/Archive/Issues/vipusk_2000_37/Rubrics/ smena/a3.html 151 Kabakchi V. Troyanskiy kon’ posledney revolyutsii/ Yazyk global’nogo rasprostraneniya i nebyvalogo vliyaniya - http://www.kulturagz.ru/Archive/Issues/vipusk_2000_37/Rubrics/ smena/a3.html 152 ibid.

58

153 Chernov I. V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – p. 66. 154 Korolev K. Universal’nyy yazyk i universal’naya pis’mennost’: v pogone za mechtoy// Yazyki kak obraz mira. – M.: OOO «Izdatel’stvo AST», SPb.: Terra Fantastica, 2003. – p. 562. 155 Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – p. 71. 156 Korolev K. Universal’nyy yazyk i universal’naya pis’mennost’: v pogone za mechtoy// Yazyki kak obraz mira. – M.: OOO «Izdatel’stvo AST», SPb.: Terra Fantastica, 2003. – p. 549. 157 Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – p. 72. 158 Khalitov B.N. Yazykovye aspekty politicheskogo protsessa: vnutrennie i mezhdunarodnye izmeneniya (Na primere Katalonii): Avtorefat dissertatsii na soiskanie uchenoy stepeni kand. polit. nauk. – Kazan’, 2006. – p. 15. 159 Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – p. 72. 160 Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – p. 78. 161 K 2015 godu polovina naseleniya Zemli budet govorit’ po-angliyski. - http://www. podrobnosti.ua/society/2004/12/09/164593.html 162 Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – p. 79. 163 ibid, p. 79. 164 Mukharyamova L.M. Yazyk i politika v kontekste globalizatsii// Doklady sektsii «Obshchestvo i politika» - http://globkazan.narod.ru/2003/a17.htm 165 ibid. 166 Kotel’nikov V. S. Opredelenie natsional’nykh interesov: Versiya gosudarstvennogo stroitel’stva v Ukraine v kontekste mirovogo opyta// Polis («Politicheskie issledovaniya»).2000. № 6 – pp. 136-137. 167 Kotel’nikov V.S. Opredelenie natsional’nykh interesov: Versiya gosudarstvennogo stroitel’stva v Ukraine v kontekste mirovogo opyta// Polis («Politicheskie issledovaniya»). 2000. № 6 – p. 137. 168 Desheriev Yu.D. Yazykovaya politika.// Lingvisticheskiy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar’. – M., 1990. – p. 616. Alpatov V.M. Chto takoe yazykovaya politika?// Obshchestvo i yazyk/«Mir russkogo slova».- 2003. № 2 169 Nevroznak V. P. Zakony o yazykakh narodov Rossiyskoy Federatsii i programmirovanie yazykovogo razvitiya// Yazyki narodov Rossii: perspektivy razvitiya: Materialy mezhdunarodnogo seminara. – Elista: APP «Dzhangar», 2000. – pp. 194-195. 170 ibid, p. 194. 171 Mikhal’chenko V.Yu. Zakony o yazykakh i yazykovye konflikty// Yazyki narodov Rossii: perspektivy razvitiya: Materialy mezhdunarodnogo seminara. – Elista: APP «Dzhangar», 2000. – pp. 118-119. 172 Mikhal’chenko V.Yu. Zakony o yazykakh i yazykovye konflikty//Yazyki narodov Rossii: perspektivy razvitiya: Materialy mezhdunarodnogo seminara. – Elista: APP «Dzhangar», 2000. – p. 118 173 ibid, p. 119.

59

D. Alvesh Luzofoniya i Sodruzhestvo stran portugal’skogo yazyka//Reshenie natsional’noyazykovykh voprosov v sovremennom mire/ Pod red. Akad. E.P. Chelysheva. – M. – SPb: Zlatoust, 2003. – p. 273. 175 Mar-Molinero C. The Politics of Language in the Spanish-Speaking World from Colonization to Globalization. – London and New York: Routledge, 2000. – p. 156. 176 Kenig M. Kul’turnoe raznoobrazie i yazykovaya politika// Reshenie natsional’noyazykovykh voprosov v sovremennom mire/ Pod red. Akad. E.P. Chelysheva. – M. – SPb: Zlatoust, 2003. – p. 13. 177 Mazhlof Anna-Maria. Prioritety YuNESKO v oblasti sokhraneniya mirovogo yazykovogo naslediya //Yazyki narodov Rossii: perspektivy razvitiya: Materialy mezhdunarodnogo seminara. – Elista: APP «Dzhangar», 2000. – pp. 58-59. 178 Yanush O. B. Yazykovoy faktor mezhgosudarstvennoy integratsii: Avtoref. dis. … kand. polit. nauk. Kazan’. 2006. – pp. 18-19. 179 ibid, p. 19. 180 Phillipson Pobert Language Policy and Linguistic Imperialism/ An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method/ edited by Thomas Ricento: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, 2006. – pp. 356-357. 181 Watson A. Jamestown: The Voyage of English. – L: ESU, 2007. – p. 63. 182 Numberto Lópes Morales. La Aventura Del Español en América: Editorial Espasa Calpe, S. A., 2005- p. 87. 183 Editorial//Label France, January 1998. – p. 1. 184 Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. – p. 143. 174

60

Chapter 2.

Hispanophone. Historical and Civilizational Background. Basic Mechanisms 2.1. Formation of Hispanic Sub-civilization in Lingua-political Context The concept of civilization is multifaceted, dynamic and therefore rather complex. The factors and principles of its interaction are scarcely insufficiently studied. The whole concept is still in its developmental phase. Taking into consideration synthesized proposals made by Russian, Spanish-speaking and other scholars, civilization can be defined as a way of being, which is applied to countries and peoples that share unique values and one culture185. Each civilization has its own political culture, e.g. the organized system of modules that facilitate interaction with other social spheres such as economic, etc. The first chapter of the study only briefly mentions Hispanophone as an element within the linguistic dimension of global politics and as a linguaphonic trend. “Hispanic sub-civilization” and the Spanish language as a link between the countries of the Spanish-speaking world need to be analyzed in order to provide a deeper understanding of the nature and current status of this lingua-political movement. The main objective of the research is to describe the historical and civilizational platform of Hispanophone and to identify its current landmarks, values and developmental processes. The author will refer to the history of the Spanish language and the phenomenon of the “Hispanic” or “Hispanic American” sub-civilization. Panhispanic ideas will play a significant role in the study and will be analyzed in the historical context of Hispanophone as a global movement. After America was discovered in 1492, Spain received a new historical role. A young national monarchy turned into the largest colonial empire.

61

Spanish colonial expansion was not merely military, economic and political. Above all, it was the propagation of the Spanish language and culture in the colonized countries, which makes the global status of the Spanish language unique even at the present time. The scale of Spanish colonial expansion in the 1520s was colossal. It was mainly focused on Central America, which had already developed into a large and prosperous state. This was the Aztec Empire, invaded by Cortes in 1520, who captured its capital and conquered the territories of modern Mexico186. Subsequently, the Spanish expanded their territories both northwards and southwards, establishing New Spain in Central America. Initially, linguistic relations in Latin America evolved differently than in Anglo-Saxon America. Native languages in North America are either extinct or are at the point of becoming extinct. This is due to the fact that the Europeans conquered these lands spreading their culture and language, often annihilating local populations at the same time. However, due to the high native population density and solidarity in Latin America, the North American language scenario could only be repeated in Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, where native populations were dispersed in smaller groups. B.Y. Subichus mentions that, “the entire epic of the discovery and conquest of America was filled with an atmosphere of intense mythmaking. The explorers and conquerors of the New World were ecstatically driven by mythological heritage”187. Even though Ch. Columbus relied on the progress of science and technology (especially in the field of shipping and navigation), he was essentially guided by irrational intuitive impulses and was possessed by the very myths, which Subichus refers to. Columbus would not have been able to receive the necessary support from the Spanish Crown without his devout persistence and truly fanatical tenacity. According to Carl Gustav Jung, a well-known culturologist, who developed the theory of the “collective unconscious” and coined the term “archetype” (a universal mental structure or platform, the matrix of human consciousness), the Iberian discovery and conquest of the New World was an act of “collective passion caused by the risen elemental power of archetypes that invaded consciousness”. This energy came from the language that the conquerors brought to the New World. The situation in North America was utterly different. Its colonization was driven by entirely different linguistic archetypes188. It was methodically-planned and its organization resembled a “respectable bourgeois enterprise”. That is why Leopoldo Zea described the Anglo-Saxon exploration of North America as a “Puritan commercial project”189. Unlike the UK, Spain was not able to manage its acquired lands with the same bourgeois practicality and soon lost its possessions. The subsequent flow of “Spanish Gold” into more economically developed

62

countries caused the well-known “price revolution” in Europe in the 17th century190. Thus, the political and economic culture introduced to the Spanish colonies was completely opposite to North America, i.e., contrary on a deep conceptual level of archetypes. Subichus notes that due to the differences in languages and cultural archetypes, the culture that developed in North America was strongly pragmatic and rationalistic and set the dominant developmental course of Western society191. Due to its lingua-historical origin, the development of Ibero-America followed the sensual-emotional and anti-rationalistic course supported by the synthesis of various racial and ethnic components. The political and cultural image of Ibero-America is a vast zone of intercultural contacts between the autochthone native cultures on the one hand and the European Creole cultures on the other hand. In regard to the current status of Hispanophone, it is important to mention that the Spanish language in Latin America initially came in contact with the native regional languages as a result of the Spanish colonial expansion. For example, Colombian Spanish still contains fragments of the Chibcha (Muisca) language that was native to the indigenous culture of Bogotá Highlands and disappeared about 200 years ago192. According to the Royal Spanish Academy, numerous Americanisms in “Latin American Spanish” were borrowed from the Arawak language, one of the most common languages in the region193. Mexican Spanish inherited a lot of words from the four main languages of Mexican Plateau: Zapotec, Mixtec, KhiaKhiu and Nahuatl. Certain Mayan languages such as Nahuatl, Quechua, Aymara, Tupi–Guarani and many others are not only present as fragments in Spanish or Portuguese, but remain living languages. Some of them are still used nowadays.194 In geopolitical terms, the historical and linguistic intrusion of Spanish in Latin America indicated that the Spanish language was able to embed its common norms without the total annihilation of the indigenous languages. E.G. Yermolova emphasizes that the Spanish conquest of Latin America was undoubtedly accompanied by strong political, economic and cultural expansion, which was mainly based on the communicative culture, expressed in language195. It is important to keep in mind that the colonialists were clearly aware of the significant effects that their conquests would have on culture and ideology. The main achievement was the introduction of Catholic Christian values to the indigenous population, which led to the emergence of Iberian Catholic universalism. This introduction occurred directly through the Spanish language as the Spanish-speaking clergy began their broad mission of mass conversion to Christianity upon their arrival in the New World. Spain’s main objective at that time was ideological

63

expansion based on Catholicism. According to E.B. Pavlova, Catholicism was a key tool for unifying a Spanish Empire that was ethnically diverse. It was the reason for conducting one common program: to discover new lands, convert their population to a “common faith” and introduce common values and language196. Catholic missions and monasteries established a strong network of Spanish schools in order to educate the future Roman Catholic citizens of the Spanish Empire. Therefore, the education of indigenous populations became a key aspect of colonial life in the first decades after the conquest. In summary, the ideological steps undertaken by the Spanish crown have formed the historical and civilizational foundation of Hispanophone. Indeed, these educational, ideological, linguistic and pragmatic initiatives contain political rather than cultural implications. Their objective is not only to impose Catholicism and European values, but also to spread the Spanish language as an integral part of these values, a tool for political, economic and cultural influence in the colonies. Franciscan monk Peter (Pedro) of Ghent played a significant role in the development of a specific educational system for the local population when he opened his first school in Texcoco, New Spain (present-day Mexico)197. The missionary gathered more than a thousand children, who received religious and civic education by studying Latin and music. The native adult population were also taught how to read at Ghent’s school. The general purpose of the schools that were founded by Peter of Ghent and other contemporaries in New Spain was undoubtedly the propagation of Catholicism. The Catholic Church considered the educational system as an effective means of securing Christianity in the New World. Spanish culture with the Spanish language as its key element was transmitted through the educational system. Viceroy Antonio de Mendoza and Bishop Juan de Zumárraga198 served this purpose when in 1534, they opened an educational institution for the Natives in Mexico. Its main objective was to educate the native elite, which would then implement a Spanish-favoring policy in New Spain. At the end of the 16th century, following the examples of Mexican colleges, the Dominican Order founded the Santa María del Rosario College in Santa Fe de Bogotá, the capital of New Granada. In 1604, St. Bartholomew College was founded by the Jesuits in the Colombian capital. Both schools are classified as senior colleges, i.e., their status and programs are close to the university level199. The need for educated people who could provide local support for the Spanish authorities (also in the lingua-political context), necessitated the idea of establishing high level educational institutions in the colonies. The foundation of the Spanish Universities in Mexico City and Lima (Peru) in 1551 as well as the University of Cordoba (Argentina) in 1613, greatly

64

contributed to the historical basis of Hispanophone. For a long time, Lima and Mexico City were the centers of intellectual life, Spanish language, culture and political traditions. The first printing press in South America was opened in Lima in 1584, where Spanish books and pamphlets were published. The first classical Spanish dramatic performance was held in Lima in 1548. Both religious and secular dramatic pieces in Spanish were staged in Lima. “Hispanic” universities extended Ibero-American cultural traditions and influenced the cultural and historical development of the region, which was determined by the Hispanic linguistic tradition. Already two centuries after the discovery of America, the main forms of Latin American spiritual and artistic culture were still not influenced by Spanish standards and traditions, but had an independent “Ibero-American” character200. In this context, we are faced with the phenomenon of cultural fusion that has affected the Spanish language of the New World and embedded certain features of indigenous languages within it. However, the differences between the Latin American and “continental” versions of the Spanish language are not too substantial. As previously mentioned, the propagation of Spanish in Latin America was a historical prerequisite for the emergence of the hispanophonic phenomenon today. In the course of historical events, Spanish extended its influence by creating new interconnected geopolitical areas. The colonial expansion of the Spanish Empire led to the emergence of new lingua-political phenomena through Spanish, which linked Spain and Spanish-speaking Latin America, Africa and Asia. This Spanish-speaking community is a sub-civilization, joined together by the Spanish language. Before focusing on Hispanic sub-civilization, one needs to address the history of the term “Hispanic America”. The names of colonial territories were meant to highlight the power of the Spanish crown. Therefore, the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America were referred to as “Hispanic America”. When the colonial system collapsed, the name Hispanic America lost its relevance and became a relic of the three centuries of the colonial past, when twenty-nine republics were part of the Spanish crown. After they received their independence, “Hispanic American” countries preserved homogeneity through their common language, culture and religion201. However, the region needed a new name that could be a linguistic indicator of the equal status of its countries. In 1976, Spanish politician Carlos Rangel introduced the term Ibero-America. According to him, although Spain was no longer a superpower in the changed world, Europe as a whole was a key figure in the political arena. Therefore, since Spain was part of Europe, the new name had to emphasize the strong

65

civilizational link between the Spanish-speaking Latin America and Europe202, which includes not only Spain, but also Portugal. Around the same time in the 1970s, another name for the region was proposed. The term “Latin America” contained no indications of the Spanish-Portuguese colonial past in the South American countries. According to numerous scholars, this is in opposition to Anglo-Saxon America. At the same time, Latin America includes all South American countries, while Ibero-America only defines the Spanish- and Portuguesespeaking states. Hispanic America remains a term that highlights the political and linguistic unity of the Spanish-speaking countries. Together with Spain they can be referred to as a Hispanic American sub-civilizational community203 with the Spanish language being its foundation. However, it is still being debated as to whether the united Latin American sub-civilization exists in the first place. According to V. Davydov, V. Travkin and several other Russian scholars, there is no Latin American civilization204. Latin America is very diverse, heterogeneous, strongly interracial and distinguished by a variety of distinctive psychological types and national characters. Therefore, it is possible to point out several major areas or “civilizational habitats”, i.e., a sub-civilizational conglomerate. V. Pérez-Díaz205 advocates an opposite point of view that Hispanic American sub-civilization includes all of the Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America and curiously enough, one European state, Spain. The civilizational unity of Hispanic America is defined by Hispanic American political culture, which is based on the Spanish language. J.G. Shemyakin’s theory coincides with Pérez-Díaz’s position. Shemyakin states that the Hispanic American community is a product of diffusion between the worldviews of Latin America and Europe. It is a “frontier” civilization, which was historically affected by “schism”206, i.e., a historiographical phenomenon that implies collision of qualitatively different values regarding all aspects of human existence, including the relations between individuals, societies and authorities. It is the schism between the opposite authoritarian and democratic sets of values that affects the entire civilization and its foundations. In Hispanic American and similar frontier civilizations, none of the “opposing parties” fully determines the nature of political culture and becomes predominant. Initially, the social genotype of the Iberian world was highly controversial. It contained both authoritarian and democratic principles. For the 200-year period after the Revolt of the Comuneros in 1521, the Iberian cultural-historical community was defined by the interrelated elements of the political culture, an “Ibero-Catholic authoritarian complex”207. It was dominated by the European values

66

that were introduced by the Spanish Crown. This system included the commonality of language and values based on a close relationship between the state and the Catholic Church, which to the detriment of society, resulted in the excessive strengthening of governmental structures. As a result of cultural synthesis, the Ibero-Catholic authoritarian complex has always been in constant conflict with those lingua-political Ibero-Catholic processes that created a new society. The root of all problems is the structure of democratic values that was created in the centers of the Western civilization208, i.e., in the social and cultural context different from that of Hispanic America. Consequently, when Spain and its New World colonies were introduced to these values in the 17th and 18th centuries, they confronted the innovations of the Western civilization, i.e., they were unknown in their sociocultural context. However, according to the Spanish historian Isidro Sepúlveda, the sociocultural environment of Hispanic America eventually adapted to Western civilization through the common language. Despite the fact that the authoritarian Ibero-Catholic complex contradicted the objectives of modernization and democratization, the opposing Hispanic American system, based on the Spanish language, was the original prerequisite in the acceptance of Western innovations, including politics209. It is not some static formation, but an evolutionary system that constantly integrates new elements. For example, the wave of democratization in the 80- 90s indicated a shift from the authoritarian towards the democratic component of the Hispano-American civilizational code. However, the “authoritarian modernization”210 relations within the Hispanic civilizational community still exist. This component can be often traced in various democratic institutions. Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia are striking examples of an authoritarian yet charismatic leadership style. The formation of common Hispanic values was a long and complex process that led to the emergence of a multi-dimensional geo-civilizational model of Hispanic America211. This model is the product of a complex interaction of heterogeneous civilizational layers since the historical image of the region was created by various nations and cultures. The main contributors were undoubtedly Iberian Europe, represented by Spain and its former colonies in Latin America. Their relations were the final determination of the civilizational nature of the region. The European origin has been a key aspect of civilizational interaction in Hispanic America in the past 500 years since the two worlds met212. Although India, China, the Arab East and the Islamic civilization affected the historic appearance of several countries in the region, it was the Western universalism represented by Spain that determined the Hispanic American

67

cultural historical community. The influence of other cultures is hardly noticeable. According to I. Sepúlveda, the common Spanish language is the main link between all of the elements of this multifaceted civilization213. It is present in all units of the geo-civilizational model: demographic technological, economic, geopolitical, environmental and socio-cultural. Spanish became an inseparable and integral part of the Hispanic American socio-genetic code. It has to be taken into account that the majority of researchers, including Isidro Sepúlveda, Y.G. Shemyakin and F. Ortiz distinguish a sub-civilizational Hispanic American model from the unified IberoAmerican civilization, which unites the countries that speak Iberian languages i.e., Spanish and Portuguese. The author believes that the Ibero-American civilizational community is much more extensive than the Hispanic American sub-civilization. However, Portugal and Spain are very different from each other despite their apparent linguistic and cultural proximity. Their historical influence in the conquered territories of America was based on different practices, and each of these countries has its own unique lingua-political foundation. According to Spanish historian S. Almuña, “the relationship between Spain and Portugal is always referred to as “cordial”, which stands for “indifferent” in diplomatic parlance214. This historical relationship remains unchanged, even though the concerns that the Spanish kingdom can possibly absorb Portugal have become groundless. The general opinion that the Spaniards and Portuguese have about each other is quite poor, despite the established cross-national influence. This influence is lingua-political and will be approached during the analysis of the lingua-political environment of Hispanophone. However, Portuguese-speaking countries take part in the Ibero-American summits initiated by Spain. According to a number of linguists who study the use of language, the Brazilian Portuguese language is becoming similar to Latin American Spanish. In his book “Adventures of the Spanish Language in America”, Humberto López Morales points out that the Ibero-American sub-civilization will become as assimilated as the Hispanic American civilizational community when the whole of Ibero-America starts speaking the same language215. His theory is based on the study of pidgins that were formed as a fusion of Portuguese and Spanish, such as Fronterizo and others. López Morales is convinced that Latin American Spanish and Portuguese will eventually blend, thus forming an entirely new “Latin Americanized” language standard, which will inherit certain basic features of Spanish and contain some elements of Portuguese. According to the scholar, only this scenario will lead to the formation of one hybrid lingua-

68

political space, which will be a fusion of Lusophone and Hispanophone, i.e., the Portuguese- and Spanish-speaking worlds. It is important to emphasize that the numerous Spanish-speaking countries are likely to take the leadership role in the integration process of this community. In regard to Ibero-American sub-civilization and the unifying role of Spanish within it, Spanish scholars Fernando Ortiz216 and Isidro Sepúlveda217 predict the formation of a separate Hispanic American race, which will be based on four main elements: Spanish as a language of intra-civilizational dialogue, common culture as a unifying factor, common history as a symbol of close civilizational proximity and Catholic confession. However, certain Russian academics share a different point of view. V.M. Davydov218 is convinced that the ethnic composition of Spanish-speaking Latin America is so diverse that it cannot have a monolithic structure and therefore, is not able to form one race. The formation of such a race would be difficult due to both the underestimation of the indigenous and black population ratio, as well as the overestimation of the white and multiracial population ratio. It is necessary to consider the level of collective culture and consciousness that contains pre-Columbus standards and stereotypes typical of the indigenous and, in part, multiracial populations. The autochthone indigenous culture influences all ethnic and racial Hispanic American groups and remains the cultural core of many countries within the region. In 1982, the representatives of the indigenous peoples gained access to the United Nations. In 1994, August 9 was proclaimed International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples. In 2007, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which for the first time in international practice, contained a thesis regarding their right of self-determination219. Subsequently, Quechua (the largest ethnic group that includes approximately 27% of the indigenous population of Hispanic America), Maya (over 14%) and Aymara (5.5%) have received the right to preserve their culture. This again refutes Fernando Ortiz and Isidro Sepúlveda’s theory220, which does not consider the “indigenous renaissance”221. Another point in the debate related to a single Hispanic American race is the difference of psychological types within the Spanishspeaking Latin American world. According to the study of V. Tretyakov222, the comparison of Chilean, Mexican and Argentinian psychological types indicates that there is neither a “common Latin American psychological type” nor a Hispanic American race. Each Hispanic American country and peoples are unique. The key factor that unites all of these psychological types is common language. It must be mentioned that the Spanish language is the link between the societies that emerged from the archetype of the Catholic Mediterranean Europe, which affected the multifaceted

69

racial composition of the region. The societies of European resettlement introduced the main trends of European political culture in the region, which still remains evident, particularly in the context of Hispanophone. Within the concept of the unified Hispanic American sub-civilization, its member states are able to set up effective integration mechanisms of cooperation, mainly based on a common language and other aforementioned factors. One of these mechanisms, an institution of the Ibero-American summits, is included in the set of components that promotes the expansion of Hispanophone, a very complex lingua-political phenomenon. Before analyzing its components and basic principles, it is important to study the civilizational, historical and other preconditions of this lingua-political mechanism. The main preconditions that require detailed analysis are the ideas of “Panhispanism” and “Hispano-Americanism”. 2.2. Panhispanism and Hispano-Americanism as the Origins of Modern Hispanophone Before analyzing Panhispanism and Hispano-Americanism as the prehistory of Hispanophone, it is important to emphasize that the Spaniards have always considered Latin American countries as part of the Spanish world. “We, the Spanish speakers, are neither one country, nor even one huge country, but much more than that; the world that we call Spanish world. Indeed, it is a world, because it is based on basic human components, beliefs, experience, customs, projects, and besides that, language, link, first interpretation of reality and the substrate of all genuine philosophy”223. This is the essential idea of Panhispanism. Panhispanism was a proposal for the Spanish foreign policy in the early 19th century. The term was coined by Sigismund Moret, a Spanish politician who was the main developer of the “reactivation of the Spanish foreign policy” program224. This idea was the basis of the Ibero-American States that were established in 1885. Moret’s main argument was the idea that the Spanish-speaking world that shares a common language, culture and history must unite and oppose the influence of North America, which seeks to dominate both Americas225. According to Moret, the Spanishspeaking countries had to unite by means of the prevailing social power, the common language. Not surprisingly, many scholars, including Van Aken, proposed to refer to such unions not only as cultural, but also political, economic and military, where language was the main tool of designing a new lingua-political reality226. The incentives for Panhispanism were the similar movements of Pan-Germanism and Pan-Latinism, which

70

were politically authorized by the 1870s and had a great impact on the amendments in Spanish foreign policy. However, Panhispanism, unlike the other movements, had no “claims for expansionism”. On the contrary, it was based on the ideas of security and protection from “external enemies” by means of the national lingua-political community. There is an obvious link between language and the national security factor. In this context, language becomes a Spanish national security factor. The program of Panhispanism is based on three conceptual elements. First, it is the lingua-ethnical component, which according to numerous Spanish politicians, should even help Spain revive its former colonial supremacy227. The second element is associated with Catholicism and the preservation of Catholic confession outside Spain. The third component is the promotion of Spanish political and economic models. All three elements had one initial objective, which was the Spanish “spiritual reconquista” of Latin America leading to the “moral hegemony” of the former “mother country”. The Panhispanism program had a strong “nationalistic” foundation228. Panhispanism identifies the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America as an object of Spanish national interest, which will be a “political mirror” reflecting the former grandeur of the Spanish crown. The followers of this theory define this magnitude through the “common” identity of Spain and the Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America, which derives from the common colonial past. Within this concept, Spain did not have hegemonic claims for Hispanic America. On the contrary, followers of this concept believe that its rapprochement with the former colonies will help Spain to form a “new identity”229. Spanish language, being “the conductor of national culture” and “the architect of national mindset”230, plays a significant role in the development of this identity, based on the belief that all of the Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America are inseparably linked to the Spanish cultural values on deep historical and civilizational levels. Thus, the core elements of Panhispanism are language and identity, i.e., the community of Hispanic American nations. At the end of the 19th century many politicians and public figures studied the theoretical components of Panhispanism. Such books as “The National Problem” by Lucas Mallada, “Our Nation” by Ernesto Quesada, “Our America” by Carlos Bunge and others caused a lot of debate231. These works also identified Catholic confession as a Panhispanic component. The authors agreed that Spain took on a very important historical role to catholicize America. As previously mentioned, this component is part of the Panhispanic “foundation”. This is the “spiritual” basis of potential convergence of Spain and Latin America, which will have a major role in uniting the fraternal countries232. According to Martinez Blanco, the

71

religious factor is the balance factor in the context of Panhispanism, since many Catholic churches in Hispanic America traditionally hold services in Spanish, which has become a platform for the further development of Hispanic American community. The “Ibero-American religious magazine” published by a young cleric Donaciano Martinez Vélez233 in 1901 is a clear example of the regional propagation of Spanish through Catholicism. This Spanish magazine that was forming the political and religious situation in the region was intended to unite the Spaniards and Latin Americans into a single Catholic Hispanic community. In 1913 a pro-Spanish Catholic magazine “Spain and America” was published in Caracas. It was much more radical in the promotion of basic religious Spanish-American values and beliefs. This magazine talked about the Spanish-American alliance, which was meant to build and strengthen the social situation in the region based on shared religious beliefs. “The Religious Bulletin” and “The Spanish-American Social Magazine” together with more than sixty magazines of this kind were published during the Panhispanic boom. The Catholic Brotherhood234 organization that was active over a long period of time in Latin America, established its offices in many Spanish-speaking countries. In Argentina alone it totaled more than thirty thousand members. This Panhispanic brotherhood actively distributed printed literature in Spanish that addressed the underlying inter-civilizational link between Spanish Catholicism and the values of the Spanish-speaking Latin American world. A “caballero Hispanidad” degree was established in a Panhispanic “Catholic Education Center”, which appeared in Argentina235 in the middle of the 19th century. This center, together with the Hispanic Association of St. Raphael, has made substantial efforts in protecting the rights of Spanish immigrants in Latin America. All these efforts were mainly related to the Spanish-language resources that were printed by these institutions in order to promote and protect “the Hispanic Brotherhood”. This once again highlights the link between religious influence in the region and the Spanish language as being a key element of this influence. By means of language, Catholicism was the basis of the renascent concept of Panhispanism. It represented Spain as the older sister of Latin American nations, “chosen by God to secure and distribute its religious beliefs worldwide”236. This element is the basis of Panhispanism. The idea of close proximity between the Spanish-speaking peoples; Panhispanism was treated as an extraordinary spiritual legacy that resulted in the synthesis of “national” and “religious”. “Spanish national spirit” implied Catholicism. According to traditionalist teachings, to be a Spaniard implied to be Catholic. Statistically, 70% of the global Hispanic population are believers,

72

who strongly rely on their religious beliefs when making vital decisions237. The synthesis of national spirit and religion in the context of Panhispanism resulted in religious values becoming part of the Hispanic set of values by means of language and having a great impact on bringing Spain and Latin America together on cultural, political and economic levels. When referring to Panhispanism as one of the prototypes of Hispanophone, it is important to mention one related crisis in the AngloSpanish relations. “Asiento”, a 30-year contract, gave Great Britain exclusive rights for the slave trade in Spanish America and was highly profitable for the British economy. Obtained by Great Britain in 1713 as part of the Utrecht Treaty, this contract is traditionally considered an achievement of the British colonial policy. The “Asiento” agreement did not only reinforce the British monopoly on the slave trade in Spanish America, but also triggered the spread of Anglophonic values in the region. These values represented a mindset that was based on the English language. This historical episode was the cause of serious political and cultural rivalry between the English and Spanish languages in the region. The result of this serious lingua-political cross-cultural confrontation was the evolution of Panhispanism. At first, Panhispanism was under the influence of Great Britain, but from the second half of the 19th century, the U.S. became the major force behind the political and cultural expansion of English in Latin America. After the Spanish colonies had become independent in the 19th century, the resistance force of Panhispanism changed. Political independence did not mean simultaneous growth of anti-English-speaking power. The economic ties between Latin America and England and later the U.S. did not allow the ex-colonies to gain total lingua-political freedom. The Monroe Doctrine tied Latin America within U.S. foreign policy and led to its certain isolation from the global arena. Despite all the difficulties, Panhispanism gradually gathered the potential to deepen and expand its position in Latin America and even in Africa, where minor Spanish colonies existed until 1970s. World War I was a powerful evolutionary impulse for Panhispanism. Its new notions were now to fight the U.S. influence in Latin America and to maintain the neutrality of the Spanish-speaking community in the coinciding war. This position was based on the purpose to “not to allow any strongest nation into the region”238. The author of this concept was Spanish social activist Rafael Vehils. He was the first person who named this objective in regard to Panhispanism, pointing out that this component should be based on the cultural and human influence of Spain, which had to be strengthened by the spread of the Spanish language in the region.

73

Vehils emphasized the importance of “lingua-political propaganda”239 in the context of Panhispanism and the potential economic benefits for Spain, in case it should implement this lingua-political course. Vehils essentially focuses on the ideas of the “united Spanish world” in the 19th century. He clarified the importance of Spanish as a tool of political and economic influence. The most significant Panhispanic concept was the formation of the Union of the Spanish-speaking countries based on common language as well as cultural and civilizational values. This model included political, religious, and economic components. Panhispanic theorists added language to each of these components as a key factor of creating a unified Spanishspeaking global political reality. The proposed model of the Union of the Spanish-speaking countries was in line with the Spanish policy of countering England’s and later the U.S. expansion on all levels including lingua-politics while maintaining its own influence as well as spiritual, ideological and institutional presence in Latin America. However, compared to Washington, Madrid’s political and economic influence was too weak to implement the ideas of Panhispanism. In addition, there was no unanimity regarding the Union of the Spanishspeaking countries in the Spanish political establishment. The “protective” component of the Union was treated as a “fictional” product of Spanish national psychology, based on “heart and imagination”, rather than “will and mind”240. Therefore, this was “myth-making” in the context of the spiritual and moral concepts of the Spanish worldview241. Panhispanism was the official doctrine of Spain that was not officially supported by the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America. Many Hispanic American countries sensed a “post-colonial” subtext in this initiative of their “sister”242 that at that time went through a period of dictatorship. In view of all mentioned factors, Post-World War I Panhispanism gave way to the ideas of “progressive Hispano-Americanism”, which should be pointed out as one of the prototypes of Hispanophone. The ideas of “progressive Hispano-Americanism” are linked to the new reality of the Versailles-Washington system of international relations that was established after World War I. This was the beginning of a new cycle of Spanish influence in Latin America, primarily through an extensive immigration wave in 1918-1920s. It resulted in Spanish culture spreading its influence upon Latin American literature, architecture and art. Apart from that, Spanish immigrants never lost cultural ties with their former home. Various institutions that provided such contacts were established. The ideas of progressive Hispano-Americanism led to the establishment of 140 Spanish cultural missions along with 30 offices of the “French Union” and “Dante Alighieri”243, a branch of the Italian Cultural Association in Hispanic

74

America. Moreover, the close cooperation of these cultural and linguistic establishments was driven by the common objective to spread the European cultural influence that was inherited from the colonial period. This fact demonstrates the main of progressive Hispano-Americanism, which was the “soft” struggle against the expansion of North American culture through the promotion of European values. The U.S. private funds in the region escalated the struggle for influence in the region by the opening of the regional branches of the American Federation of Arts, the Carnegie Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Guggenheim Memorial Foundation and the Ford Foundation. The goal of all these intermediaries between the USA and Latin America was the expansion of North American values through charity in the field of education, science and culture. The Rockefeller Foundation grants were actively used by the National Arts Fund of Argentina, the “Torcuato di Tella” Institute of Social and Economic Research, the Mexican National Institute of Fine Arts and the Center for Mexican Authors. The Rockefeller Foundation as well as the other two members of the “big three”, the Ford Foundation and the Guggenheim Foundation provided financial support for interregional cultural programs, particularly within the Organization of American States244. The Inter-American Council for Culture, established in 1949, became an important part in the US expansion mechanism. Its objectives were to promote friendly relations and mutual understanding between the “American peoples” through education, science and culture and facilitate the integration of the Council member states245. These initiatives can be considered as the foundation of the Anglophone movement, the global propagation of the English language. It originated in 1889 with the creation of the Pan American Union. The objectives of this concept that was put forward by the U.S. were Pan American unity and the common interests of both Americas. These events resulted in the diversity of the initial linguaphonic confrontation in the region246. The initial language contact and lingua-political cross-influence of Spanish and English in the region would later lead to the emergence of such “dangerous” phenomenon as pidgins. Thus, the ideas of progressive Hispano-Americanism were based on the fusion of the European and North American values in Hispanic America and lasted until World War II. The difference between Panhispanism and progressive Latino-Americanism was the clear program of the latter. This program helped establish a solid cooperation basis between Spain and the Hispanic American countries. According to the program proposed by the Spanish political scientist H. Altamira, the Spanish version of European culture and values had to spread itself in the region that consisted of five sections: organization of the movement, immigration issues, economic objectives, protection of native language and communication technology.

75

Thanks to this pro-American program, Spanish diplomatic and consular missions were restructured. They began to function more effectively after the establishment of special agencies that were responsible for trade contacts. Moreover, the Hispano-American program envisaged the reform of the Supreme Council of Emigration that was in charge of Spanish schools for Spanish immigrants in Latin America. There were 23247 such schools by 1960. Dual citizenship in Hispanic America was the responsibility of the Council. The first agreements on dual citizenship only appeared in the 1930s, which reinforced regional interaction. In accordance with the current Spanish migration policy, Spaniards may naturalize in Latin America without losing their Spanish citizenship. The economic component of Hispano-Americanism was represented by the establishment of the Ibero-American Credit Bank, which was an important tool for economic integration within the region. However, the key components of Hispano-Americanism as the predecessor of Hispanophone were the protection of the language and intellectual exchange. In the context of this movement a unified postal union was established in the region and a telephone cable that linked Spain with Latin America was installed. Spanish became “lingua franca” that could provide inter-ethnic communication in the region in the cultural, historical and demographic contexts. The economic component of language propagation played a key role in the expansion and strengthening of Spanish in the region, i.e., the mother tongue became the most convenient language of trade in terms of the ethno-linguistic proximity of Hispanic American countries. Spanish, as a language that was used to “baptize” America and introduce it to European values248, was also considered as a status factor in the HispanoAmerican perspective. This postulate brings Hispano-Americanism and Panhispanism closer, once again emphasizing the importance of a common language in the region. However, it was only Hispano-Americanism that pointed out the issues related to the standardization of Spanish and the uniformity of its use in all Hispanic American countries as a very important factor in the formation of one common cultural space. The ideas of Panhispanism and Hispano-Americanism as the historic basis of Hispanophone, clearly demonstrate the historical-cultural interconnectedness between Spain and the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America. Both movements became part of the Spanish official doctrine each in its time, i.e., the vector of its foreign initiatives in relation to Latin America. According to Isidro Sepúlveda, who devoted a separate study to these topics, the emergence of both trends would be impossible without a powerful uniting linguistic factor or a “basis” of integration mechanisms in Hispanic America249. However, Panhispanism and Hispano-

76

Americanism have exhausted their potential and have failed to keep up with the challenges of the modern global political processes. The key aspect of both movements was that Spain was to act as their ideologue and founder, being the center of unification, as believed in Madrid. Spain used its language to achieve foreign policy goals throughout the whole colonial period from the conquests until the independence of its colonies, which can be confirmed by the Panhispanic and Hispano-American doctrines. The 20th century, especially the Post-World War II period, has been a time of profound changes in global politics and international relations, including the collapse of the global colonial system that led to the formation of numerous independent states. Their appearance in the global political arena has significantly changed the course and content of the foreign policies of the leading countries. After losing their colonies, many of these countries in Europe regained (or attempted to regain) their former authority and political influence through multifaceted undertakings as members of the EU, which is an economic, cultural, social and political community. Spain is a prime example. Being an EU member, it aims to act as a bridge between the EU and Latin America. It is also involved in the further development of relations with Africa, especially after the launch of the Mediterranean program. In these circumstances, Madrid places a strong emphasis on Hispanophone with all the diversity of its essential features, trends, approaches and forms. 2.3. Components of Hispanophone in the Context of Spanish Foreign Policy The Hispanophone trend is primarily concerned with the expansion of the Spanish language and is a key factor in global political relations250. Spanish has a vast geopolitical distribution area that can be divided into several regions. The first region includes countries where Spanish is the official or native language for the majority of the population: “...Europe: the Kingdom of Spain, including the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla in Northern Africa (39,200,000 people); North America: the United Mexican States (92,711,000 people) in Central America: the Republic of Guatemala (10,928,000 people), the Republic of Honduras (5,666,000 people), the Republic of Costa Rica (3,71,000 people), the Republic of Nicaragua (4,272,000 people), Panama (2,674,000 people), the Republic of El Salvador (5,897,000 people), the Antilles Islands: Dominican Republic (7,897,000 people), the Republic of Cuba (10,960,000 people), the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (3,766,000 people); South America: the Argentine Republic

77

(34,180,000 people), the Republic of Bolivia (7,593,000 people), the Republic of Venezuela (22,311,000 people), the Republic of Colombia (35,99,000 people), the Republic of Paraguay (4,964,000 people), the Republic of Uruguay (3,140,000 people), the Republic of Chile (13,994,000 people) and the Republic of Ecuador (11,698,000 people)”251. The second region includes countries with a large percentage of the native Spanishspeaking population. It is in primarily the USA, where the Hispanic population is concentrated, in the southern states of New Mexico, Texas, California, Arizona and along the Atlantic coast from Massachusetts to Florida. There are over 20 million Spanish native speakers, Chicanos – the indigenous population of the south-western states, ceded to the U.S. in 1848 as well as immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries252. The third region includes former Spanish colonies in Africa, where Spanish has official status and is widespread among the native Arabic- or African-speaking population. These are the Republic of Equatorial Guinea (406,000 people) and Western Sahara (283,000 people)253. The last area is the former Spanish colony of the Philippines, where after losing its official status, Spanish is still being used. In the Philippines, approximately 2,000,000 people speak Spanish and more than 600,000 speak the Creole language Chavacano254. Along with Catalan and French, Spanish is also the official language of Andorra, which is part of the Catalan-speaking area. Thus, the political space of the Spanish language spans over four continents: Europe, Africa, North and South America and Asia. It is important to point out that the Spanish language is taught in countries that are not directly related to the Hispanic world. In Russia and numerous other countries of the CIS, the EU, Asia and Africa, Spanish is taught in public and language schools and at universities. Spanish is even taught in Morocco, despite its claim in 1956 to return Ceuta, Melilla and the offshore islands captured by Spain in the 15-16th centuries and the fact that Spanish Morocco occupied its coastal territories (28,000 sq. km) in 1912. This indicates that the cultural space is larger than political space. This, however, does not prevent the countries (where Spanish is a cultural element; except Morocco, where Spanish is part of the lingua-political landscape) from joining Hispanophone, which has a significant political content. Francophone can be used as a comparable example. Ethiopia joined La Francophonie even though French language and French culture in Ethiopia represented only a small part of its cultural life after World War II. Now, at the end of the first decade of the 21st century, Spanish is the official language of Spain, all Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America, Andorra and since 1978, in Equatorial Guinea and Western Sahara (along

78

with Arabic)255. Spanish (along with English) was the official language in the Philippines from 1953 to 1987256. It retains its position of being a native language and a language of culture. The linguistic situations in the countries represented by the Spanish language are extremely diverse. For example, the lingua-political identity of such countries as Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay coexists with Spanish and different European languages due to the high level of immigration. Bilingual and multilingual systems can lead to the emergence of mixed languages, such as the Cocoliche language (a mixture of Spanish and Italian) in Argentina or Spanish-Guaranian in Paraguay257. Spain itself represents a rather complex lingua-political conglomerate due to the cultural and linguistic individuality of several provinces, also known as “small motherlands” or “minor cultures”. Historically, Spain is a country of four languages: three Indo-European Romance languages (Castilian, Catalan and Galician), and one Non-Indo-European (Basque). Today, all four languages are official. The current status of these languages is a result of a fierce political struggle of the native speakers. At times, it has caused serious clashes with the opponents who were against political, social and cultural equality of these languages. Linguistic identity is linked to the struggle of the Basque Country, Catalonia and Galicia for the preservation, recognition and lingua-political independence of their mother tongue. The languages of these provinces have remained independent linguistic units. This is due to the fact that the Spanish Constitution defines these provinces as “nationalities” within the Spanish nation258. The present day autonomies were established in accordance with the Spanish Constitution of 1978, which recognized 17 autonomous “nations and regions”, declared Spanish the official language with a remark that other languages in Spain have official status in corresponding autonomies according to their position. Autonomies have their own constitution, which is represented and managed by regional governments. The linguistic policies of the provinces are linked to the principle of “balanced bilingualism”, which states that according to the autonomous status, certain “national languages are considered official languages of the provinces, while Spanish is considered the official language of the Spanish state”259. This means that the revived public use of national languages is combined with a personal right of the Spanishspeaking population to use their own language. According to the 2006 population census, 73% of adults in Catalonia can speak Catalan and 95% Spanish. In the Basque Country, 76% know Euskara and 94% - Spanish260. In both cases, about 10% of respondents who now use Catalan or Euskara

79

as languages for everyday purposes spoke Spanish as their first language in their childhood. A vivid example of a Spanish provincial language policy is Catalonia. Since 1979, its government has had full authority in language questions. Catalan is the language of education on all levels. According to current statistics, 93% of students who study at the Autonomous University of Barcelona speak Catalan. According to the “public institutions” law, the knowledge of Catalan is a requirement for regional public service posts. Most local press is published in Catalan, including the Spanish newspaper El Periodico, which has been published in the national language since 1999. Seven public radio stations mainly broadcast in Catalan: Radio Quatre, Catalunya Radio, COM Radio, Catalunya Informacio, Radio Associacio de Catalunya, Catalunya Musica and Catalunya Cultura261. Out of 192 municipal radio stations, about 80% broadcast in Catalan. According to the quotas established by the “Language Policy” law in 1998, any film that has more than 16 copies in distribution must be dubbed in Catalan. Catalonia and the Basque Country are actively engaged in their own foreign policy, but especially in the linguistic aspect. This policy is referred to as “regional paradiplomacy” in the Spanish political circles and has three main objectives: 1) to provide support for the provinces in the international market and within international organizations and create a cooperation network; 2) to gain international recognition in regard to national identity (comparable to the status of Scotland) and 3) to protect regional interests and reinforce their involvement in the EU262. According to Isidro Sepúlveda, the policy of the provinces includes a number of mechanisms that ensure that the national linguistic autonomy becomes an “irreversible historical fact”263. The language policies of Catalonia and the Basque country are lingua-nationalistic, which is typical for ethno-territorial entities in other countries. It needs to be emphasized that lingua-nationalism is often used as a response to lingua-chauvinism. For example, linguistic nationalism in the Basque Country or Catalonia is linked to their struggle for independence. In this context, language has a cultural and political value and is an element of national identity. Every Spanish province seeks to implement its own linguistic policy. Some radical groups in the Basque province suggested the implementation of monolingualism in schools, i.e., all teaching is to only be conducted in Euskara. Apart from the struggle for the “purity” of the native language, this example represents an explicit protest against the policies of the Spanish Kingdom. Such lingua-political confrontations are typical of many countries and regions. In 2006, Eddie de Block’s (Mayor of Merchtem, Belgium)

80

campaign to “purify” Flemish and ban signs and school education in French and German shook the International Community. The nationalists’ victory in the elections of 2006 in Flanders was accompanied by calls for its separation from Belgium. This has not gone unnoticed in Paris and Berlin, which seek to strengthen the political and cultural role of their languages to the greatest possible extent. Both France and Germany reacted with protests against the Flemish separatists. During the “Know your Neighbors” conference organized by the Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein in Kiel in 2004, V.S. Yagya was the first politician and academic to propose studying Germanophone.264 Even before German reunification, the Federal Republic of Germany and the GDR made considerable efforts to promote the expansion of the German language, culture and political philosophy of the two German states. Internal language relations can become subject of international relations that can lead to contradictions in form of public protests, media reports or even harsh government actions, which exacerbate regional relations and affect the global political situation. Language problems in Spain are essential for the development of Hispanophone. A cause for an internal split can be an ethno-linguistic split, which has been clearly demonstrated by Spain, Belgium, Macedonia, France, the UK and many other countries. Control of the use of language in many, if not all countries, is understood as a key condition of sovereignty. Its preservation is the dominance of the national language265. Therefore, linguistic diversity in a country with one official language, co-official regional languages and languages that aim at raising their status may cause conflicts, which occur due to lingua-political contradictions and lead to ethnic separatism. The ethno-linguistic division in Spain may eventually affect the Spanish language, making it more complex or changing it on the Iberian Peninsula, which could potentially affect the efficiency of Hispanophonic processes both in Spain and overseas. The local languages of Spain appear as a factor of contradiction, disintegration and nationalistic struggle. They are used as an important political tool to influence supreme authority and individual ethnic groups and to exacerbate international relations. A certain percentage of native speakers have taken the initiative to improve their life and language or even to claim their independence led by historical, national, mental, political, social, economic or simply separatist reasons. Despite such colossal development of Hispanophone and the firm position of the Spanish language in the world today, the future of Spanish in Spain is quite open for debate. The international dimension of Hispanophone is directly related to Spanish foreign policy trends. Spain has played an important role in

81

its formation and development. Before defining the phenomenon of Hispanophone and identifying its boundaries, it is important to present the course of Spain’s foreign policy initiatives, which coincide with those of Hispanophone. The essence of foreign policy in present day Spain is inseparably linked to the historically determined “triple-project” geolinguistic position of the country. As part of Europe, Spain has been supporting close political, economic and cultural relations between both coastal and inland European countries for several centuries. Access to the open ocean determined Spanish participation in the exploration of Central and South America for several centuries. Linguistic, cultural and historical commonalities between Spain and Spanish-speaking Latin America have contributed to Spain’s important foreign and economic roles in IberoAmerica. The third component of Spain’s foreign policy focuses on the Mediterranean region, including the Maghreb and in particular Morocco, which borders the Spanish territories of Ceuta and Melilla. This is one of the reasons for Spain to become an active supporter of the Mediterranean program. The trinity of the Spanish foreign policy priorities took centuries to develop. However, it only became modern, dynamic and balanced at the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st centuries. It coincides with the Hispanophonic development model. This poly-paradigmatic nature of Hispanophone indicates that it was and remains the official or unofficial part of Spanish foreign policy, which is an important aspect of global politics. One of the key directions of Spanish foreign policy and Hispanophone is the EU. On the civilizational or even genetic level, the future of Spain is dependent on Europe. Since Spain joined the EU in 1986 after the collapse of the Franco regime, it has been actively involved in the European integration processes. After the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, Spain made every effort to comply with the “convergence criteria” of Maastricht, i.e., combining fiscal austerity measures, tax penalties and skillful manipulation of financial leverage. Spain has been taking part in all EU programs. The subsidies of the European Regional Development Fund have greatly enhanced its economic status. The pro-integration position of Spain’s main political parties contributes towards its enhanced EU integration. After joining the EU, Spain had the Presidency of the Council in 1989, 1995 and 2002. The influence of Hispanophone on foreign policy initiatives in present day international relations becomes evident. It was Spain’s close linguistic proximity with Hispanic America that triggered its promotion for the EU presidency in 2002, which attracted political, economic and organizational attention of the EU towards Latin America. Leading Spanish politicians266

82

emphasize the contribution of Spanish officials towards strengthening the ties between the EU and Latin America, in particular the signing of the free trade agreement between the EU and Mexico. In regard to Spain’s geo-linguistic contribution in Europe, its strategic alliance with the U.S. as a NATO member has to be emphasized. Spain, unlike many other EU members, officially supported the U.S. in the war against Iraq in 2003. This coalition between Spain, the U.S. and Great Britain is not coincidental. It was not only Atlantic solidarity with Washington and London, but also an attempt to oppose the growing consolidation of Paris and Berlin. In addition, it was an attempt by Madrid to expand its influence in the inland territories of the Mediterranean region. Once again, Hispanophonic processes echo in this political initiative of Spain. Under the influence of Hispanophone, Spain became deeply involved in the region of the Americas, which resulted in a critical political decision that caused the collapse of Aznar’s party during the following elections and brought J.L. Zapatero to power. On the one hand, Spain is involved in the EU integration processes, supporting the concept of Europeanism. In particular, Madrid has defended a number of enforcement provisions, such as a system of “qualified majority” of the vote during the development of the EU Constitution and the Constitutional Act drafts (Treaty of Lisbon). Spain has proposed to mention God, Christianity and religion in the Constitution of the EU. The explanation of Madrid’s position, which caused a heated discussion among the EU member states, is dictated by a historically determined religious factor, which has an enormous influence on the country’s foreign policy. On the other hand, Spain is an active NATO member that supports Atlanticism along with the UK. The duality of Spain’s current foreign policy becomes evident in this context. According to Spanish politician Luis Gonzalez, “Spain keeps the central position between Atlanticism and Europeanism, which allows it to remain open-minded”267 and provides opportunities for the Spanish language to enter both Europe and North America. Likewise, Latin America is a subject of both Spain and Hispanophone’s foreign policies. Spanish relations with this region have a longer history than its ties with the EU. It is the legacy of the past, when the Spanish conquistadors seized large areas of Central and South America and ruled there for centuries. History has once again brought Spain and Latin America close together, promoting their cooperation in the international arena and reinforcing the role of Spain as a link between the EU and Latin America. Latin America is a region of highly productive interaction in the perspective of the EU. Latin America is an important geostrategic target of the EU in the competition against the U.S. While Washington

83

seeks to maintain and strengthen its hegemony within the pyramid world order, the EU is trying to catch up with the U.S. in terms of power and political influence in the multipolar world, which is valued in the European capitals. The significance of the Spanish language as a key factor in Spanish foreign policy, the native language of the absolute majority of Latin Americans and as the UN-recognized international language has to be emphasized once again. The language factor strongly influences the implementation of Spanish foreign policy. According to Article 11 of the Constitution of 1978, the State may make dual nationality treaties with the Ibero-American countries and Spaniards may become naturalized without losing their Spanish nationality. Over the past few years, the volume of the direct Spanish investments in Ibero-America has significantly increased. The investments of the Spanish companies in the region rank first in Europe. Spain has also initiated the majority of cultural and educational programs in Latin America. Spain participates in all Ibero-American Summits, which deal with crucial problems in the region. Spain is actively expanding the scope of the Spanish language on the international level through Hispanophone, thus supporting its political, cultural and economic objectives. Spain’s policy regarding the propagation of the Spanish language has become an integral part of its international activities. Spain maintains close relations with the Maghreb countries. Ceuta and Melilla, its strategic military bases, secure Spanish presence in North Africa and serve as strongholds of Spanish political influence in this region. Spain initiated two Cooperation Agreements between the EU and Morocco (1996) and the EU and Tunisia (1995), which were the first steps towards the establishment of the Free Trade Zone. Spain closely cooperates with Morocco by providing scholarships and grants for Moroccan students to study in Spain. However, this does not eliminate conflicts between Madrid and Rabat regarding the island territories occupied by Spain. In 2002, a few Moroccan troops occupied the Spanish island of Perejil, which Spain quickly returned back to the status quo ante. The beginning of the 21st century was a time of comprehensive development and establishment of new courses in Spanish foreign policy. Since 2000, Spain has close economic and cultural cooperation with China and Japan. Spain has increased its cooperation with its former colonies the Philippines and Equatorial Guinea. According to the Cervantes Institute, which has been highly active in these countries, about 50,000 Spanish native speakers live there. Thus, the significance of the Spanish language, cultural heritage and historical ties in the modern world is once again being indicated.

84

It is obvious that the triple-paradigmatic nature of Spanish foreign policy has remained unchanged. It chooses the middle path between Atlanticism and Europeanism, being committed to the Ibero-American world. Hispanophone will develop in the same way focusing on European, Latin American and Atlantic expansion. Hispanophone, based on the ideas of Panhispanism and HispanoAmericanism, includes both internal and foreign policy components. Its internal policy component is largely associated with the norm of the Spanish language and the intralingual problems within Spain. The foreign policy component is inseparable from Spanish foreign policy, which is directed at Latin America, the EU and its former colonies in Africa and Asia.

185 Sepúlveda Isidro. El Sueño de la Madre Patria. Hispanjamericanismo y Nacionalismo: Fundación Carolina. Centro de Estudios Hispanicos e Iberoamericanos, Marcial pons, Ediciones de Historia, S. A. Madrid, 2005. –p. 23. 186 Shishmarev V.F. Ocherki po istorii yazykov Ispanii/ Obshch. red. akad. I. I. Meshchaninova. Izd. 2-e, stereotipnoe. – M.: Editorial URSS, 2002. – pp. 157-158. 187 Subichus B.Yu. Novyy svet i kul’tura Novogo vremeni// Latinskaya Amerika i mirovaya kul’tura. M.: Institut Latinskoy Ameriki RAN, 1995. – pp. 10-11 188 ibid, p. 20. 189 ibid, p. 16. 190 Subichus B.Yu. Novyy svet i kul’tura Novogo vremeni// Latinskaya Amerika i mirovaya kul’tura. M.: Institut Latinskoy Ameriki RAN, 1995. – pp. 16-17. 191 ibid, p. 21. 192 Shishmarev V.F. Ocherki po istorii yazykov Ispanii/ Obshch. red. akad. I. I. Meshchaninova. Izd. 2-e, stereotipnoe. – M.: Editorial URSS, 2002. – p. 156. 193 Pérez-Díaz V. Sueño y Razón de América Latina: Fundacion ICO. Madrid, 2005. – pp. 66-67. 194 Shishmarev V.F. Ocherki po istorii yazykov Ispanii/ Obshch. red. akad. I. I. Meshchaninova. Izd. 2-e, stereotipnoe. – M.: Editorial URSS, 2002. – p. 164. 195 Ermolova E.G. Latinoamerikanskie vneshnie kul’turnye svyazi: institutsional’nyy aspekt//Latinskaya Amerika i mirovaya kul’tura. M.:Institut Latinskoy Ameriki RAN, 1995. – p. 192. 196 Pavlova E.B. Portugaliya i integratsionnye protsessy v sovremennom mire: politicheskie aspekty. Sankt-Peterburg: BAN, 2001. – p. 68. 197 Ermolova E.G. Latinoamerikanskie vneshnie kul’turnye svyazi: institutsional’nyy aspekt//Latinskaya Amerika i mirovaya kul’tura. M.: Institut Latinskoy Ameriki RAN, 1995. – p. 193. 198 ibid, p. 195. 199 Ermolova E.G. Latinoamerikanskie vneshnie kul’turnye svyazi: institutsional’nyy aspekt//Latinskaya Amerika i mirovaya kul’tura. M.:Institut Latinskoy Ameriki RAN, 1995. – p. 195. 200 ibid, p. 215. 201 Pérez-Díaz V. Sueño y Razón de América Latina: Fundacion ICO. Madrid, 2005. – p. 43. 202 Ibid, p. 45.

85

203 Shemyakin Ya.G. Iberoamerikanskaya politicheskaya kul’tura i tsennosti modernizatsii: perspektivy demokratii v Latinskoy Amerike/Globalizatsiya razvitiya, Novye orientiry Rossii i Latinskaya Amerika. ILA RAN. M, 1996. – p. 156. 204 “Chto delat’?” s edinstvom mnogoobraziya//Latinskaya Amerika.2007. № 4 – p. 25. 205 Pérez-Díaz V. Sueño y Razón de América Latina: Fundacion ICO. Madrid, 2005.– p. 49. 206 Shemyakin Ya.G. Iberoamerikanskaya politicheskaya kul’tura i tsennosti modernizatsii: perspektivy demokratii v Latinskoy Amerike/Globalizatsiya razvitiya, Novye orientiry Rossii i Latinskaya Amerika. ILA RAN. M, 1996. – p. 156. 207 ibid, p. 158. 208 Shemyakin Ya.G. Iberoamerikanskaya politicheskaya kul’tura i tsennosti modernizatsii: perspektivy demokratii v Latinskoy Amerike/Globalizatsiya razvitiya, Novye orientiry Rossii i Latinskaya Amerika. ILA RAN. M, 1996. – p. 156. 209 Sepúlveda Isidro. El Sueño de la Madre Patria. Hispanjamericanismo y Nacionalismo: Fundación Carolina. Centro de Estudios Hispanicos e Iberoamericanos, Marcial pons, Ediciones de Historia, S. A. Madrid, 2005. – p. 15. 210 Shemyakin Ya.G. Iberoamerikanskaya politicheskaya kul’tura i tsennosti modernizatsii: perspektivy demokratii v Latinskoy Amerike/Globalizatsiya razvitiya, Novye orientiry Rossii i Latinskaya Amerika. ILA RAN. M, 1996. – p. 160. 211 Yakovets V.Yu. O mnogomernoy geotsivilizatsionnoy modeli//Globalizatsiya i vzaimodeystvie tsivilizatsiy: M, Ekonomika. 2003. – p. 66. 212 Shemyakin Ya.G. Evropa i Latinskaya Amerika: Vzaimodeystvie tsivilizatsiy v kontekste vsemirnoy istorii. M.: Nauka, 2001. – p. 80. 213 Sepúlveda Isidro. El Sueño de la Madre Patria. Hispanjamericanismo y Nacionalismo: Fundación Carolina. Centro de Estudios Hispanicos e Iberoamericanos, Marcial pons, Ediciones de Historia, S. A. Madrid, 2005. – p. 45. 214 Pavlova E.B. Portugaliya i integratsionnye protsessy v sovremennom mire: politicheskie aspekty. Sankt-Peterburg: BAN, 2001. – p. 66. 215 Lópes Morales. La Aventura Del Español en América: Editorial Espasa Calpe, S. A., 2005. 216 Ortiz F. La reconquista de America, Reflexiones sobre el Panhispanismo, Paris, Sociedad de Ediciones Literarias y Artisticas, 1910. – p. 65. 217 Sepúlveda Isidro. El Sueño de la Madre Patria. Hispanjamericanismo y Nacionalismo: Fundación Carolina. Centro de Estudios Hispanicos e Iberoamericanos, Marcial pons, Ediciones de Historia, S. A. Madrid, 2005. – pp. 46-47. 218 Davydov V.M. Tsivilizatsionnye kachestva regiona// Latinskaya Amerika. 2007. №4. 219 Sepúlveda Isidro. El Sueño de la Madre Patria. Hispanjamericanismo y Nacionalismo: Fundación Carolina. Centro de Estudios Hispanicos e Iberoamericanos, Marcial pons, Ediciones de Historia, S. A. Madrid, 2005. – p. 46 220 Ortiz F. La reconquista de America, Reflexiones sobre el Panhispanismo, Paris, Sociedad de Ediciones Literarias y Artisticas, 1910. 221 Palabras y mundos. Informe sobre las lenguas del mundo: Icaria editorial, Barcelona, 2006. – p. 346. 222 “Chto delat’?” s edinstvom mnogoobraziya//Latinskaya Amerika.2007. № 4 223 Pavlova E.B. Portugaliya i integratsionnye protsessy v sovremennom mire: politicheskie aspekty. Sankt-Peterburg: BAN, 2001. – p. 76. 224 Sepúlveda Isidro. El Sueño de la Madre Patria. Hispanjamericanismo y Nacionalismo: Fundación Carolina. Centro de Estudios Hispanicos e Iberoamericanos, Marcial pons, Ediciones de Historia, S. A. Madrid, 2005. – p. 101.

86

225 Van Aken, M., Pan-hispanism: Its Origin and Development to 1866, Berkeley, University of California Press, 2001. – p. 56. 226 ibid, p. 65. 227 Sepúlveda Isidro. El Sueño de la Madre Patria. Hispanjamericanismo y Nacionalismo: Fundación Carolina. Centro de Estudios Hispanicos e Iberoamericanos, Marcial pons, Ediciones de Historia, S. A. Madrid, 2005. – p. 102. 228 Van Aken, M.Pan-hispanism: Its Origin and Development to 1866, Berkeley, University of California Press, 2001. – p. 68. 229 Sepúlveda Isidro. El Sueño de la Madre Patria. Hispanjamericanismo y Nacionalismo: Fundación Carolina. Centro de Estudios Hispanicos e Iberoamericanos, Marcial pons, Ediciones de Historia, S. A. Madrid, 2005. – p. 105. 230 Martínes Blanco, M. T. Identidad Cultural de Hispanoamérica. Europeismo y Originalidad Americana, Madrid, Universidad Complutense, 1998. – pp. 12-13. 231 Sepúlveda Isidro. El Sueño de la Madre Patria. Hispanjamericanismo y Nacionalismo: Fundación Carolina. Centro de Estudios Hispanicos e Iberoamericanos, Marcial pons, Ediciones de Historia, S. A. Madrid, 2005. – p. 104. 232 Sepúlveda Isidro. El Sueño de la Madre Patria. Hispanjamericanismo y Nacionalismo: Fundación Carolina. Centro de Estudios Hispanicos e Iberoamericanos, Marcial pons, Ediciones de Historia, S. A. Madrid, 2005. – p. 115. 233 Van Aken, M., Pan-hispanism: Its Origin and Development to 1866, Berkeley, University of California Press, 2001. – p. 46. 234 Sepúlveda Isidro. El Sueño de la Madre Patria. Hispanjamericanismo y Nacionalismo: Fundación Carolina. Centro de Estudios Hispanicos e Iberoamericanos, Marcial pons, Ediciones de Historia, S. A. Madrid, 2005. – p. 108. 235 Palau G. El Problema de la Eficacia de la Acción Social Católica en las Grandes Cuidades. Buenos Aires, 1997. – p. 58. 236 Van Aken, M., Pan-hispanism: Its Origin and Development to 1866, Berkeley, University of California Press, 2001. – p. 109. 237 Koval’ T.B. «Kakim arshinom merit’?» Ispanskiy vzglyad na Rossiyu skvoz’ prizmu tsennostnykh predstavleniy// Latinskaya Amerika. 2006. № 12. – p. 30. 238 Sepúlveda Isidro. El Sueño de la Madre Patria. Hispanjamericanismo y Nacionalismo: Fundación Carolina. Centro de Estudios Hispanicos e Iberoamericanos, Marcial pons, Ediciones de Historia, S. A. Madrid, 2005. – p. 113. 239 ibid, p. 120. 240 Koval’ T.B. «Kakim arshinom merit’?» Ispanskiy vzglyad na Rossiyu skvoz’ prizmu tsennostnykh predstavleniy// Latinskaya Amerika. 2006. № 12. – p. 26. 241 Shemyakin Ya.G. Evropa i Latinskaya Amerika: Vzaimodeystvie tsivilizatsiy v kontekste vsemirnoy istorii. M.: Nauka, 2001. – pp. 80-97. 242 Pérez-Díaz V. Sueño y Razón de América Latina: Fundacion ICO. Madrid, 2005. – p. 43. 243 Khayt V.L. Istorichnost’ i mera samobytnosti kul’tury Latinskoy Ameriki// Latinskaya Amerika i mirovaya kul’tura. M.: Institut Latinskoy Ameriki RAN, 1995. – pp. 198-199 244 Pérez-Díaz V. Sueño y Razón de América Latina: Fundacion ICO. Madrid, 2005. – p. 43. 245 Khayt V.L. Istorichnost’ i mera samobytnosti kul’tury Latinskoy Ameriki// Latinskaya Amerika i mirovaya kul’tura. M.:Institut Latinskoy Ameriki RAN, 1995. – p. 200 246 Shemyakin Ya.G. «Pogranichnye» tsivilizatsii planetarnogo masshtaba// Latinskaya Amerika. 2007. №7 – pp. 75-77. 247 Pérez-Díaz V. Sueño y Razón de América Latina: Fundacion ICO. Madrid, 2005. – p. 49. 248 ibid, p. 81.

87

249 Sepúlveda Isidro. El Sueño de la Madre Patria. Hispanjamericanismo y Nacionalismo: Fundación Carolina. Centro de Estudios Hispanicos e Iberoamericanos, Marcial pons, Ediciones de Historia, S. A. Madrid, 2005. – p. 154. 250 Numberto Lópes Morales. La Aventura Del Español en América:Editorial Espasa Calpe, S. A., 2005. – p. 8. 251 Narumov B.P. Ispanskiy yazyk/Yazyki mira: Romanskie yazyki. M.: Academia, 2001. – p. 412. 252 ibid, p. 413. 253 Narumov B.P. Ispanskiy yazyk/Yazyki mira: Romanskie yazyki. M.: Academia, 2001. – p. 413. 254 Numberto Lópes Morales. La Aventura Del Español en América:Editorial Espasa Calpe, S. A., 2005. – p. 32. 255 Narumov V. P. Ispanskiy yazyk/Yazyki mira: Romanskie yazyki. M.: Academia, 2001. – p. 415. 256 ibid, p. 415. 257 Narumov B.P. Ispanskiy yazyk/ Yazyki mira: romanskie yazyki. M.: Academia, 2001. – p. 415. 258 Puch Pao Chetyre izmereniya Katalonskoy modeli/Deyatel’nost’ mezhdunarodnykh organizatsiy i evropeyskiy opyt v oblasti sokhraneniya yazykov etnicheskikh men’shinstv: Materialy mezhdunarodnogo seminara. Elista: APP «Dzhangar», 2000. – p. 73. 259 Lepretre M. Yazykovoe planirovanie i ispol’zovanie yazyka v Katalonii/Deyatel’nost’ mezhdunarodnykh organizatsiy i evropeyskiy opyt v oblasti sokhraneniya yazykov etnicheskikh men’shinstv: Materialy mezhdunarodnogo seminara. Elista: APP «Dzhangar», 2000. – p. 86. 260 Enciclopedia del Español en el Mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2006-2007: Instituto Cervantes, Madrid 2007. - p. 55. 261 Lepretre M. Yazykovoe planirovanie i ispol’zovanie yazyka v Katalonii/Deyatel’nost’ mezhdunarodnykh organizatsiy i evropeyskiy opyt v oblasti sokhraneniya yazykov etnicheskikh men’shinstv: Materialy mezhdunarodnogo seminara. Elista: APP «Dzhangar», 2000. – p. 90 262 ibid, pp. 81-82. 263 Sepúlveda Isidro. El Sueño de la Madre Patria. Hispanoamericanismo y Nacionalismo: Fundación Carolina. Centro de Estudios Hispanicos e Iberoamericanos, Marcial pons, Ediciones de Historia, S. A. Madrid, 2005. – p. 149. 264 Kieler – Woche – Gesprach 2004/ Know your Neighbours- die Nachbarn kennen lernen! Kiel: im Schleswig – Holsteinischen Landtag/ 2004. – pp. 23-24. 265 Kol’ev A.N. Natsiya i gosudarstvo. Teoriya konservativnoy rekonstruktsii. – M., 2005. 266 Jose M. Carvajal. España y la evolucion politica de la Union Europea: FRIDE. – Madrid, 2002. – p. 180. 267 Aznar y sus mitos? // El Mundo. Jueves 21.08.2003. – pp. 4-5.

88

Chapter 3.

Hispanophone as a Global Movement 3.1. Hispanophone as a Lingua-political Identity of the Modern World Hispanophone represents Spanish global, foreign and language policy, with language being an integration tool to unite all Hispanic countries within one lingua-political community and a link between various Latin American countries and the EU, the U.S. and the rest of the world. Hispanophone’s extensive development owes to the support from various governmental agencies and international organizations. Hispanophone becomes an integral part of global politics through the activities of the governmental agencies, which are guided by the Spanish language policy, as well as international organizations, which are related to the Spanish language. Spanish is a highly standardized language. Its present day form emerged in the 17-18th centuries. The Royal Spanish Academy, established in 17131714 has contributed to the preservation of its linguistic unity. In addition, the Academy has been promoting the expansion of Spanish worldwide. Its offices exist under the auspices of the Spanish embassies in numerous countries. All Spanish-speaking countries seek cooperation in maintaining the unity of the common Spanish norm. The first academy, established in Hispanic America, was the Colombian Academy (1871). In certain countries, this process continued until the middle of the 20th century. In 1960, all academies were united within the Association of Spanish language Academies with the exception of the Argentine Academy and the National Academy of Uruguay, which act independently. In 1985, the North American Academy of the Spanish language joined the Association. It has convened every four years since 1951268.

89

The Hispanophone movement started in 1988 after the establishment of the Rectors’ Council for the Spanish Language under the auspices of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Council is still coordinating Hispanophonic policies, conducts research on the status of the Spanish language worldwide and supervises the distribution of language diplomas. Hispanophone has been further expanding and setting more global objectives largely due to active involvement of the Latin American Spanish-speaking countries. Annual Ibero-American Summits are the main political component of Hispanophone. These are forums for discussing regional issues of concern. These forums focus on the commitment of Ibero-American countries to the principles of representative democracy, human rights, fundamental freedoms and the right of peoples for self-determination. They were established in Mexico in 1991 in preparation for the celebration of the quincentenary of the discovery of America. The unifying element here was the identity of Latin American and Iberian peoples, based on the Spanish and Portuguese languages. The 21 countries that take part in the summits are Spain, Portugal and all Ibero-American countries269. Their main purpose is to strengthen the Ibero-American national community on the basis of shared values, close cooperation and the propagation of an Ibero-American identity. The main means for achieving these objectives are the propagation of a common language and culture, their integration; extending the knowledge of one another and the reinforcement of public institutions. The summits are held in order to coordinate the views of the member states on the key issues of global politics and global development and to trigger economic and cultural cooperation within the Ibero-American world270. Spain, as a key participant, sees the mechanism of Ibero-American Summits as an additional factor of political coordination and preservation of close cultural and linguistic proximity of the member states. The initiative of establishing the Ibero-American Summits comes from Spain. Their task is to unite the Spanish-speaking countries in cultural and political (but not territorial) perspectives. Brazil’s participation is not coincidental, since it is trying to secure its leading position in the region. In this context, Portugal’s participation in the summits is also natural, since Brazil, as its base in Latin America, has become a part of the process. Brazil and Portugal have been involved in the Ibero-American Summits almost from the very start. Brazil wished to become the core country for the whole of Latin America, while Portugal did not want to lose its ground on the Iberian Peninsula, in Brazil and other Portuguese-speaking countries. The participation of Brazil and Portugal in Ibero-American Summits was possibly the first step in the process of joining Hispanophonic

90

and Lusophonic forces to counter the hegemony of the English language and transform the political space of the Romance languages into a unified lingua-political community. About 13% of the present day U.S. population consider Spanish their native language. Nearly half of them are U.S. born citizens. The U.S. Hispanic population has grown by 35% since 1999, while non-Hispanic population has only increased by 3%. It mainly inhabits New Mexico, California, Texas, Arizona, New York, Colorado, Florida and Illinois. Hispanics are likely to increase the U.S. population growth by 44% between 2000 and 2030. The figure for the period between 2020 and 2050 is expected to reach at least 62%271. In the 1980s, the U.S. was the fourth largest Spanish-speaking country in the world after Mexico, Spain and Argentina. In the first quarter of the XXI century, the country is expected to move into second place. According to studies conducted by the North American Academy of the Spanish language, the four major Hispanic zones in the U.S.272 are 1) North-East (dominated by Mexicans), 2) Florida, (Cubans), 3) East (Spanish-speaking Puerto Ricans, Dominicans and Cubans) and 4) Chicago (Mexican and Puerto Rican minorities). This statistic indicates the presence of distinct bilingualism in the United States: the close proximity of different languages that was caused by gradual migration and resulted in mass resettlement. At present, both languages within the complex ethnic community are at the stage of linguistic transformation. Code switching (Spanglish or Pocho) has become a common phenomenon in the U.S. It is a fact that despite Spanish and Ibero-American struggle against Spanglish, Latin America currently experiences a serious degradation of the Spanish language, which prevents the positive development of Hispanophone. According to the Spanish academic Gregorio Salvador, Anglicisms are flooding Spanish more than any other European language.273 The U.S. English Foundation (the most influential non-governmental organization engaged in the U.S. language policy) has published a report that presents a complete picture of the linguistic diversity in the U.S. However, the report does not recognize the need to legitimize Spanish (second position in the ranking) on the federal level, which is claimed by numerous liberal intellectuals and politicians. The foundation consistently refers to Spanish as a foreign language stating that “throughout U.S. history, many foreign languages have reached the “worth learning” status. The German language had this status one century ago followed by French, then Japanese and now Spanish. Tomorrow it might be Arabic and Chinese”274. In any case, Spanish is now the second most common language in the U.S.

91

In 1960-1970s, the Congress passed the Bilingual Education Act that allowed public schools to develop educational programs, textbooks and other resources in other languages. Despite giving rise to public protests, this law reflected the linguistic situation in the United States, recognizing the scope of the Hispanic presence and making bilingual education an integral part of the U.S. education system. However, bilingual education is still unauthorized in 23 U.S. states, which makes the idea of Spanish being an official language in the United States irrelevant. Spanish linguistic policy is primarily aimed at the expansion of Spanish and Latin American cultures. At present, there are more than 500 Spanishspeaking publications in the United States including 120 newspapers and magazines with a circulation of 7.5 million copies per day. Large American newspapers such as “The Miami Herald” (Miami, Florida, 120,000 copies per day) publish inserts in Spanish. Two American national channels, Univision and Telemundo, broadcast in Spanish as well as the cable channel Galavision275. For example, Hallmark, the largest North American company to produce greeting cards, paid 300 million USD to buy a controlling stake in the Univision TV channel. It also invested an equal amount in several national radio stations broadcasting in Spanish. Warner Communications in Los Angeles invested 1 million USD to acquire a 20% stake in the illustrated supplement “Vista”, which is aimed at Spanish-speaking readers and is included in numerous English-language newspapers. According to A. Pomias, “the U.S. dollar has discovered the Hispanic market, and money speaks any language”276. Along with the governmental Institute of Ibero-American Summits, which has its own management body, there exists a large non-governmental organization called the Cervantes Institute, which is the main tool for implementing the Spanish global language policy. Spanish diplomatic missions accredited in various countries support implementing this policy. Spanish embassies promote the teaching of the Spanish language in secondary schools throughout the U.S. and maintain the language norm. The Royal Spanish Academy has developed a language policy model for the Spanish-speaking American countries. According to Pedro Alvarez de Miranda, no other Spanish language institution in any country has ever gained such prestige and authority on the idiomatic level as the Spanish Academy277. The Cervantes Institute is a Spanish state agency that was established in 1991 in order to offer Spanish courses and expand the Spanish and Latin American cultures. Its headquarters are located in Madrid and Alcalá de Henares (Madrid, Spain), the hometown of the author Miguel Cervantes. The regional offices are spread over four continents, in more than 50 countries, including Russia. The

92

graduates of the Cervantes Institute receive language certificates that are recognized by the Spanish government278. The Institute monitors the use of Spanish as a foreign language worldwide and publishes annual statistical reports279. The most successful projects aimed at the expansion of the Spanish language abroad were280: 1) the project on the propagation of Spanish on international radio, television and in the press (DIES-RTVP) 2) the web presence of the Royal Spanish Academy (http://www. rae.es/) and its input into the CREA (Reference Corpus of Contemporary Spanish) and CORDE (diachronical corpus) corpora. Similarly, the Cervantes Institute uses its virtual center (http://www.cervantes.es/) in order to promote Spanish worldwide, being the conductor of the “global online version of Spanish” and Hispanophone in general. In addition to Latin America and the U.S., Hispanophone has affected Africa and Europe. The areas of Spanish propagation in Africa are primarily the former Spanish colonies Equatorial Guinea (until 1968 Spanish Guinea), Western Sahara (until 1976 Spanish Sahara) and Spanish Morocco (until 1956 one of the Moroccan colonial zones). In the context of international cooperation and expanding globalization, the language situation and the status of Spanish have become extremely diverse. The analysis of the Spanish internal and foreign language policies brings forward a curious contradiction. Outside Spain, Spanish is a steady conductor of Spain’s political influence and a platform for unifying Spanish-speaking countries. Within the country, it does not have the role of a safeguard. Therefore, Spain has to face numerous hard-to-solve problems such as Basque terrorism, aggressive regionalism and ethnic disparities. Spain has been playing a key role in the Spanish-speaking community. This critical role as a conductor in the Spanish-speaking world has become part of the Spanish identity. The study of language as a global political factor requires the analysis of language policy and lingua-political interactions between the countries in the international arena. Language policy is closely linked to the geopolitical status of the country and affects its geopolitical space. The prevalence of the Spanish language is an indicator of Spain’s status in the world arena. At the same time, the country’s leading position results in the dominance of its national language. Consequently, there is a direct correlation between the status of the country in the international community and the popularity of its language. Thus, Hispanophone is an essential factor in global politics that forms the complex system of modern political and linguistic relations.

93

Modern Spain is a country that promotes the integration of Latin America into global processes through capital injections, cooperation in education, science and culture. The annual Ibero-American Summits are aimed at reinforcing these ties. They are also an efficient tool to promote the expansion of Hispanophone. These are forums for discussing regional issues of concern that focus on the commitment of Ibero-American countries to the principles of representative democracy, human rights, fundamental freedoms and the right of peoples for self-determination. They were established in Mexico in 1991 in preparation for the quincentenary of the discovery of America. The unifying element here was the identity of Latin American and Iberian peoples. The Spanish-speaking countries, united within the Institute of IberoAmerican Summits through a common language, are a part of the global community, which may be referred to as Hispanidad281 implying a geolinguistic area or a group of regions, countries and communities where Spanish is the official language. The Ibero-American Summits are a prime example of approximation on the basis of common history and culture. This leads to the establishment of political and cultural institutions, which promote the expansion of the Spanish language and culture in Spanishspeaking countries outside Spain. Hispanidad is a fundamental part of Hispanophone and includes a full range of multifaceted relations between Spain and Latin America. In this context, the Institute of Ibero-American Summits requires more detailed analysis within this study. The 21 countries that take part in the summits are Spain, Portugal and all Ibero-American countries. Their total population is estimated at 489 million people, and the total area of all countries is 21,352,017 square kilometers. A declaration containing the name of the host city is published after each summit. The core documents are the Guadalajara (1991) and Madrid (1992) declarations that contain the mission statement of the member countries282. The Institute of the Summits established a secretariat that was approved at the eighth summit in Porto, which assembles in Madrid. Its main purpose is to strengthen the Ibero-American national community on the basis of shared values, close cooperation and the propagation an Ibero-American identity. The main means of achieving these objectives are the propagation of common languages and cultures, their integration; extending the knowledge of one another and the reinforcement of public institutions. As previously mentioned, the first and the second Ibero-American Summits were held in Mexico and Spain. The main topic of the first summit was the unification of the countries’ political will in order to cooperate in

94

the international arena. The member states had to confirm this will at the second summit. The third Ibero-American Summit was held in El Salvador in July 1993. The topic of its final declaration was the development of the countries, specifically in a social sphere. Scholarships to study in Spain and Portugal and grants to eliminate illiteracy have been introduced283. Several countries proposed to hold biennial summits due to financial shortages in regard to implementing new programs every year. However, the summit calendar was not changed. 1994 was a significant year for Latin America, since it became a key player in four international meetings. The tenth Conference in San Jose and the meeting between the Rio Group and the European Union were aimed at reinforcing the cooperation with the EU, followed by the Summit of the Americas in Miami and the sixth Ibero-American Summit in Colombia284. The Cuban question was one of the main issues on the summit agenda in 1994. F. Castro updated the participating countries on the progress and the challenges of the economic reforms in Cuba. F. González, Prime Minister of Spain, reiterated his country’s willingness to continue supporting the ongoing reforms in Cuba, which contradicted the U.S. Havana policy. The statement of the Cuban leader that attempted to draw attention to the U.S. embargo and accused the Ibero-American countries for their inaction was virtually neglected. The main topic of the meeting was “Trade and Integration as Factors of the Ibero-American Development”. The Spanish delegation tried to implement it by proposing the establishment of an intercontinental insurance company that would focus on exports. Spain also mentioned the EU’s intention to sign an MFN agreement (“most favored nation”) with Mexico. Spain’s position during the summit is quite understandable. Its main objective was to lay the foundations for 1995, the Spanish presidency period in the EU, during which it had to forge closer ties between the two regions. The fifth Ibero-American Summit was held in October 1995 in Argentina. Its final declaration was entitled “Education as an Important Factor of Economic and Social Development”. It contained a call for France and China to stop their nuclear tests, since such actions constitute a danger to health, safety and the environment. The question of illegal drug trafficking was also raised. According to the summit participants, the terrifying scale of drug trade in Latin America threatened the democratic regimes in the region. This resulted in the development of the American Convention to call on the countries to fight the escalating drug trade.

95

The Cuban question did not go unnoticed. Spain pushed the discussion and disapproval of the increasing embargo imposed by the U.S. on Cuba. The words “embargo” and “Cuba” appeared in the final declaration. At the summit, F. González, whose country held the European presidency at that time, was talking about the approximation between Europe and Ibero-America and about Spain doing its utmost to strengthen their ties since the first presidency period in 1989. Latin American achievements in promoting democracy and respect for human rights deserved a response in the form of closer relations with the EU for the common good of both parties. The first step towards closer dialogue was the signing of the Inter-regional Cooperation Agreement between the 15 EU countries and Mercosur in December 1995 in Madrid. The sixth Ibero-American Summit took place in Chile in November 1996. The main topic of the ratified declaration was a plea for effective and participative democracy. The final document was divided into three sections. The first section was dedicated to the plea itself. The second section touched upon further cooperation between the countries on the basis of previous agreements. The third section drew attention to various questions such as democracy, human rights, sustainable development, poverty alleviation, lack of social programs, drug trafficking and related crimes. The first section of the document, which was the main outcome of the summit, included a passage in support of democracy, rule of law and human rights. “Ibero-Americans are convinced that the key elements of democracy are independence of the authorities, their mutual control; balanced representation and influence of all classes; freedom of speech, assembly, association, information and free periodic leader elections”285. In the second section of the document, cooperation mainly implied joint educational programs funded primarily by Spain. The third section contained numerous questions referring to different political resolutions. For example, the Helms-Burton Act passed by the U.S. Congress in order to strengthen the embargo against Cuba caused the most critical attitude of the participating countries. According to the summit declaration, such actions are considered a violation of the fundamental principles of international law. A number of statements condemning terrorism, drug trafficking and supporting human rights were also a part of the third section. A significant detail was the rapid deterioration in relations between Spain and Cuba in the year between the fifth and the sixth summits. At the end of the meeting, the Prime Minister of Spain said that relations between the two countries could only improve if Fidel Castro carried out economic modernization, democratization and reforms aimed at the recognition of human rights and freedoms.

96

The seventh Ibero-American Summit was held in Venezuela in November 1997. Spain once again encouraged the development of relations between Latin America and the European Union. All countries were in favor of a joint summit between the EU, Latin America and the Caribbean nations to be held in 1999. However, nothing was mentioned in regard to the second Summit of the Americas, which was established by the U.S. Although the Spanish-Cuban relations were still tense, the countries attempted to normalize the situation. Spain did not question the venue of the 1999 Ibero-American Summit in Cuba, but requested to follow the established joint principles. In turn, Cuba and the other countries agreed with the final paragraph of the Declaration on Spain’s rights on Gibraltar. This was a serious blow for Britain, which essentially owned Gibraltar and did not want to give up this strategically important territory. Portugal hosted the eighth Ibero-American Summit, in the course of which Spain achieved the most effective results. As previously mentioned, the establishment of the Secretariat of the Ibero-American Summits in 1998 with a permanent seat in Madrid was Spain’s main diplomatic achievement. However, it had to be headed by a representative from Latin America. In an interview with the Portuguese radio, J.M. Aznar stated that the meeting brought the great Ibero-American family even closer together. It could finally establish the principles of economic and political cooperation despite the financial crisis286. The final Declaration “Challenges of Globalization and Regional Integration” focused on the impact of globalization on the economy, which had lately made the stock markets and most Latin American governments shudder. It was agreed to ask for immediate help from the world’s richest G8 countries and international financial institutions, in order to stabilize the markets and consequently stop the economic decline in Latin America. As part of this resolution, Spain allocated 5,670 million USD to IberoAmerican countries, which were affected by the crisis287. This way, Spain proved that it is much easier and more effective to solve common problems in cooperation. In 1999, the ninth Ibero-American Summit was held in Havana. As the name suggests, the main topic of the final declaration “Ibero-America and the International Financial Situation in the Globalized Economy” was the financial situation in the world, the impact of globalization on the development of Ibero-America and the measures required to offset the adverse effects of this process. The failure of all Latin American plans to develop and raise the level of education due to a multi-million debt was also a subject of discussion. The declaration contained the rejection of the unilateral and extraterritorial application of national laws, the disapproval

97

of the American Helms-Burton Act, a corresponding dismissal plea for the U.S. and disassociation from the process against former Chilean dictator A. Pinochet, initiated by the judge B. Garzon in Spain. The relations between the official representatives of Spain and Cuba remained tense in Havana. J.M. Aznar declared that he only attended because he understood the importance of reinforcing the Ibero-American unity. This was a significant process for the future of Spain, being the number one investor in Latin America. The second reason for Aznar’s visit was the opportunity to meet with Cuban dissidents. The venue for the 2000 summit was Panama. The main topic of the meeting and the ratified declaration was “Children’s Rights in the Modern World”. It was agreed to make every effort to ensure that by 2015 all children in Latin America receive basic primary education, to continue running economic and social programs aimed at decreasing poverty and to raise the value of family as the foundation of society. The declaration called for signing the ILO conventions on child protection by all Latin American countries. It condemned racism, racial discrimination and intolerance. The gratitude to the Spanish Government for supporting the Secretariat of the Ibero-American Summits in its beginnings was expressed in a separate paragraph of the declaration. Its agenda and budget for the following year were also ratified. Various aspects of multilateral cooperation, including the development of economic relations and the fight against international drug trafficking and terrorism were discussed. In conclusion, the delegation of El Salvador proposed a joint declaration condemning the activities of ETA. However, Cuba insisted on vetoing the document, which in its mind discriminated against other countries that were affected by terrorism. The eleventh Ibero-American Summit in Peru resulted in the signing of a Declaration that was aimed at the establishment of more equitable rules of international trade between rich and poor nations. Spain announced its intention to continue to provide economic aid (1.5 billion USD per annum)288 to the participating Latin American countries in order to safeguard and improve their economies. Great attention was paid to international terrorism in connection with the events of September 11. The final Declaration contained a clause on the suppression of terrorism in all its manifestations, rejection of political asylum for terrorists and their immediate extradition for trial. According to Isidro Sepúlveda, the unanimity on this issue was reached by means of a common language, a powerful factor affecting the establishment of common security systems.

98

Despite the ethnic and cultural contexts, the relations within the framework of the Ibero-American Summits are rather complex and undoubtedly have a negative effect on Hispanophone. The seventeenth Ibero-American Summit, which was held in the Chilean capital of Santiago in 2007, was very controversial289. Apart from signing the Santiago Declaration, the countries agreed on joint measures to combat social inequality. However, this summit is not only remembered for its agreements, but also for the scandal concerning the charismatic Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez. His final speech at the forum was about Cuba. Fidel Castro’s close friend recalled how the former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar tried to persuade Venezuela to stop supporting the Cuban government in 1999 in exchange for economic benefits. The Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Ángel Moratinos referred to the situation as very problematic, because, according to him, it was an insult against a senior official in the presence of the head of state. On the other hand, he assured that the relations between the two countries would be developing in accordance with previous agreements. During the summit, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez repeatedly violated the protocol by making unflattering comments about certain countries or state officials. The final Declaration contained 15 sections. Spain committed itself to provide some 1.5 billion USD290 within four years to supply water to the most vulnerable regions. In 2008, the President of the Chilean Senate visited the St. Petersburg Legislative Assembly. During his meeting with the Chairman Plenipotentiary of the St. Petersburg Legislative Assembly V.S. Yagya, he suggested that Russia and Chile establish an international fresh water organization. According to him, Russia was second in the world in terms of fresh water deposits. Together they could exploit huge glaciers and export fresh water to the countries where it was needed. The Declaration called for the establishment of a common Emergency Management Center in Panama City. The Convention on social security was adopted separately. It allowed migrant workers to transfer welfare payments from one country to another. Countries also adopted the cooperation regulations to fight natural disasters and declared 2008 the Year of the Ibero-American Youth. A separate declaration of the seventeenth Ibero-American Congress condemned the U.S. for imposing additional economic sanctions against Cuba and called on both Governments of Argentina and the UK to start negotiations on the status of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). The eighteenth Ibero-American Summit in San Salvador supported the reinforcement of democracy. The topics of the summit were tourism, environment and numerous questions related to the propagation of Spanish, which is significant in regard to the current study. It was the first time

99

for the questions regarding the pidginization of Spanish in Latin America, language standardization and language consistency throughout Hispanic territories in the context of various regional dialects to be raised. Many questions were related to the strengthening of the “global form of the Spanish Language”291, i.e., a common ethnic form that preceded the national language forms (for example, the Mexican, Cuban, Argentinean, Iberian territorial dialects, etc.) Of course, the eighteenth summit was not the only event to discuss and ratify the documents related to the development and propagation of Spanish. This was not a coincidence. Centuries of self-developmental processes within the former Spanish colonies in Latin America have brought forward many opportunities for beneficial cooperation between them and Spain, including the modernization of their societies and the formation of democratic institutions. This became possible after the fall of the Franco regime and Spain’s democratic transformation. Latin American interest in Hispanophone, expressed at the mentioned summits, is primarily dictated by the Spanish language, which is the native and national language of almost every country in this vast region. It is also a powerful weapon in their fight against the U.S. domination, the American “backyard” attitude and the total “imperial” offensive of the English language, Anglo-Saxon culture and the Anglo-Saxon “imperialism”. This clarifies the desire of the International Organization of La Francophonie to further develop its relations with the Spanish-speaking countries in opposing the AngloAmerican uniformization, a term used by the first General Secretary of the French-speaking organization, Boutros Boutros Ghali. According to him, “by defending the French language and its related civilization we safeguard the rights of other languages and cultures: Spanish, Arabic and Russian”292. The same can be declared by the hispanophones and their organizations in regard to the French language. In addition, hispanophones from all over the world can claim that the safety of the Spanish language is the safety of their countries. This viewpoint was repeatedly shared during the IberoAmerican summits. The words of the famous linguist Baudouin de Courtenay that language contributes to the fusion of cultures and civilizations are well known in the Spanish-language world. This axiom could be extended by the political understanding of the Hispanophonic values and objectives. The Spanish-speaking parts of Latin America and Africa have experienced the influence of more powerful civilizations on their mother tongues (in this case, indigenous American and African languages). Several Latin American countries such as Bolivia and Guatemala have made their indigenous languages official or national, concerned with the possibility

100

of their exclusion from the scope of communication under the influence of Spanish. Many hispanophones disapprove of such measures, referring to the emergence of duality within the monolingualism of Spanish. Their opponents quote the journalist Joseph Bikerman who states that such measures result in doubling rather than duality. This double civilizational identity can certainly have negative effects as well. It can lead to the elimination of political opponents who do not speak indigenous official languages or hindrances in employment, promotion and business careers. The official course towards making French the official language in Ethiopia after the victory of the democratic forces in 1991, who exiled the leaders of the repressive military-political regime, reduced the influence of the Amharic language, which was the main official language of the country for decades, and promoted disintegration. Dehispanization of Latin America (as well as deamharization of Ethiopia) is unlikely to have any beneficial consequences. In this context, it is important to highlight the fact that the Roman Catholic Church essentially switched the liturgy language from Latin to Spanish in the Spanish-speaking countries. As previously mentioned, the Cervantes Institute is a unique component of Hispanophone. At the seventeenth and eighteenth summits, its representatives reported on the acquisition of Spanish across the world and proposed the opening of new regional offices in different parts of the world, in order to expand its network coverage. Attempts to define “linguistic policy”, “linguistic management” and “language” in the context of the Hispanic world were undertaken at the initiative of the Institute. The result of the 18 summits was the establishment of a common lingua-political space based on the common history, culture and heritage of the 21 countries. Apart from cooperation, the strengthening of the IberoAmerican community is a relevant present-day trend within Hispanophone. Spain understands the significance of this community and directs efforts towards its consolidation. These efforts include the funding of educational and social programs, establishment of the Summit Secretariat in Spain, rejection of the proposal for biennial summits and substantial economic aid for Latin America in times of financial crisis. At these meetings, Spain is reinforcing its political authority in the region and strengthening its historical ties with former colonies. Apart from lingua-political and integration goals, the summits are aimed at stimulating economic relations between the countries. The Ibero-American Summits help increase Spain’s economic and political significance in the region and raise its status as the steering nation within Hispanophone. The initiative to hold Ibero-American Summits in order to unite the Spanishspeaking world belongs to Spain. In this context, Brazil’s participation in

101

the summits is not coincidental. It tries to retain its leading position in the region and cannot ignore such an alliance. Portugal’s participation in the summits is also natural. It was forced to join, because Brazil, being its pillar in Latin America, had become part of this process. The IberoAmerican summits, as a political component of Hispanophone, clearly indicate that Hispanophone and Lusophone intersect in Latin America. This may result in the merging of these lingua-political movements, particularly on the basis of the Ibero-American Summits. This prediction will be addressed in the concluding section of the study. According to S. Huntington, Brazil has a chance to become a leader in Latin America, but will have to compete against Mexico, Venezuela and Argentina. At the same time, Huntington states that “Brazil for Latin America is the same as Iran for Islam”293. In addition, the linguistic differences between Brazil and the Spanish-speaking parts of Latin America become a major obstacle for Brazil in gaining such status. The comparison with Islamic Iran seems greatly exaggerated. It is contradicted by Brazil’s participation in the IberoAmerican Summits, anti-American negotiations with Venezuela and other left-wing countries and the merging developments within Hispanophone and Lusophone. Latin America today is a region with an economic potential that attracts various international actors, including the EU. The ties between Europe and Latin America became stronger by the mid-1970s after the establishment of political and economic relations between the two regions. Spain and Portugal’s entry into the EU in the 1980s accelerated this process, allowing Latin America to expand its foreign policy priorities and become less dependent upon its northern neighbor. The key topics in the relations between Europe and Latin America in the 1970-1980s were the political and security issues, struggle against dictatorships, transition towards democracy and conflict resolution in Central America. In the 1990s, economic interests gained priority. The European investment and export in the region substantially increased. The project to create an inter-American free trade area, which could be an obstacle to European investment and reduce the quota for European goods in favor of the U.S., prompted the development of a new EU strategy towards Latin America. As a result, the regional economic relations intensified. Since 1990, the increase of direct investment in the economy of Latin America reached 1000%. The region started receiving 30% of all EU investments in the developing countries. Trade relations developed in favor of the EU. Its trade surplus with Latin America totaled 14 billion USD and proved unprofitable for the latter294. The two parties had reasons to increase dialogue and

102

promote further approximation. The EU’s objectives were to prevent U.S. expansion in the region, secure its economic benefits and reinforce its status in the international relations. Latin America aimed at increasing agricultural exports and diversifying trade relations. Spain’s role in the context of relations between Europe and Latin America should not be underestimated, since the priority areas of its foreign policy include both of these regions. Today’s Spain is referred to as a “bridge” or link between them, which raises its status as an EU member and partner in Ibero-American cooperation. The first important steps towards approximation between the two regions were made by Spain during the second period of its EU presidency. Prior to 1995, the EU contacts with Latin America were limited to unilateral agreements with individual states. Spain assisted in signing agreements with such integration blocs as Mercosur and the Andean Community, which, however, were not productive. Political dialogue between the two regions was only institutionalized in 1999, after the first summit between the European Union, Latin America and the Caribbean nations in Rio de Janeiro. The first two collaboration documents “Declaration of Rio de Janeiro” and “Priorities for Cooperation” were ratified after the summit. A working group consisting of representatives of the EU and Latin America was established in order to monitor and reinforce cooperation between the two regions. This meeting laid the foundation for negotiations on trade relations, which were to begin in 2001 and last until 2005. In addition, the political commitments of the member states regarding the establishment of the intercontinental political alliance were identified. The meeting was the basis for further cooperation in economic, political, cultural, scientific, technological and social spheres. However, the main economic contradiction regarding the exports of agricultural products from Latin America to the EU was not clarified. Spain retained its interest in the future of the region as part of the EU foreign policy in the period between the first and second Summits. Supported by Germany, it opposed the closing of the Institute for European-Latin American Relations (IRELA) in Madrid. A conflict, which was caused by Spain, broke out in the European Commission in July 2000. Spain presented a memorandum with the main thesis being, that the EU relations with Latin America had worsened in the previous years. According to Spain, the reason for this was the loss of the European Commission’s interest in the region, which contradicted the outcome of the 1999 Summit. In addition, the memorandum referred to the reduction of the EU’s aid to Latin America and a slowdown in the implementation

103

of rehabilitation programs in Central America, aimed at coping with the consequences of hurricanes. The Commission denied all charges made by Spain, declaring that the agreement signed with Mexico, the negotiations with Mercosur and the Summit of 1999 were events of great significance, yet did not have to take place too often. Spain had the opportunity to demonstrate its intention for approximation and cooperation between the two regions during its presidency in the EU. For that reason, Madrid hosted the second summit of the European Union, Latin America and the Caribbean nations in 2002. Before the meeting, the newly appointed European Commissioner Chris Paten talked about the numerous changes in Latin America, the Caribbean and the EU, e.g. the introduction of Euro as well as the Common Foreign and Security EU Policies. The Commissioner referred to the forthcoming enlargement of the EU, implying that the partnership between Latin America and the EU had changed in the ten years’ time. In addition, the Commissioner declared that it was time to adjust the EU foreign policy in accordance with the new status of both regions. It was time for a new partnership in the new era. C. Patten called the Madrid Summit a historic event, which became a meeting platform for the heads of the member states and the president of the EC. According to the Commissioner, such meetings supported the dialogue based on the first summit agreements and strengthened relationships through the development of joint programs. These meetings made a significant contribution to the stability of international relations in the political and economic spheres295. Following the summit, the parties adopted a memorandum on interregional cooperation and commitments on the basis of the countries’ cultural, historical and political communality. Its political component included the observance of international law, respect for human rights, fight against all manifestations of terrorism, racism, struggle for gender equality and children’s rights. The economic component contained the strengthening of regional cooperation, desire to secure economic growth and stability, fight against poverty, promotion of foreign trade and investment flow into developing countries, equalization of the regional technologic sectors, stimulation of regional integration and development of small and medium businesses. Special attention was paid to the economic status of the island countries and the challenges they were facing. A series of messages was sent to the European Commission, the European Investment Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank with an appeal to develop their own initiatives in the region. At the 2002 Summit, the EU agreed to deepen political dialogue and discuss the cooperation agreement with six Central American countries:

104

El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama. This became an important milestone on the way to reinforcing the crossregional relations. One of the clauses in the agreement was related to the establishment of a free trade zone. The European Commission sent an authorization request to the Council of Ministers on December 3, 2002 to start negotiations with these countries in order to achieve political dialogue and sign the cooperation agreement. The proposal is still under discussion. The Madrid Summit also hosted a meeting between the EU and the Andean Community. Its participants welcomed the debate on the cooperation agreement with the EU and discussed the strengthening of economic ties and increasing investment in the region. Such negotiations helped secure democracy and democratic governments in the region, respect for human rights and further integration within the Andean Community of Nations. The European Commission sent an authorization request to the Council of Ministers on December 3, 2002 to start negotiations with the Andean Community and its member countries: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela. Already on March 18 of the same year, the Council authorized such negotiations, which did not exclude the possible signing of the required agreements. The summit in Madrid was particularly important for the talks between the EU and Mercosur. By 2002, they had been ongoing for three years and addressed cooperation, political dialogue and tariff reduction. The development of the EU - Mercosur relations received a new impulse, yet Mercosur could not achieve the desired outcome. The free trade agreement was not signed, although additional rounds of talks were planned. The resolution was likely postponed to the next summit, scheduled for 2012. Mexico achieved the best outcome from the Summit. The EU committed to pay this country 56 million Euro in subsidies between 2002 and 2006 in order to support the development of its economy and strengthen its political institutions296. Mexico was the first country to sign an association and cooperation agreement with the EU, which had already entered into force in 2000. The cooperation between the European Union and Latin America has been deepening. This successful development is an important factor that influences the status of each region in the international arena. For Latin America, the EU is the only counterweight to the U.S. influence in the region. Although the U.S. remains an important market for Latin American products and strives to establish the FTAA, Latin America attempts to diversify its foreign relations. This explains the desire of Latin America to establish a free trade area with the EU. The latter is not interested in establishing such a zone due to its unprofitability. Although Latin American

105

agricultural products are highly competitive, agriculture remains the most subsidized branch in the EU. However, the level of European investment in the region and numerous meetings (e.g. in Madrid and Rio de Janeiro) indicate the significance of Latin America to the EU. Despite M. Marin’s statement, that Europe has acquired strong influence in Latin America but has not gained authority297, the exclusion of this region from the foreign policy trends will result in losing key positions in international relations. The EU clearly understands this and is highly committed to strengthen its position in the region. The major role of Spain in this process is undeniable. It is vital for Spain to be the conductor in the process of inter-regional cooperation, since it simultaneously raises its status in both Latin America and the EU. Spain successfully uses the EU presidency to achieve its goals. The Latin American course was a clear priority in the EU foreign policy in 1989, 1995 and 2002 (periods of Spanish Presidency). This course is parallel to the political priorities of Spain and Hispanophone in general. Spain has been successful in its achievements. In the eyes of the EU, it is the leader in the Ibero-American community and the main axis of the alliance between Latin America and the EU. Hispanophone as a powerful political factor, promoting integration and cooperation between the countries, has positively affected this development. 3.2. The Cultural and Economic Dimension of Hispanophone As stated in the second chapter, Spain’s post-Franco foreign policy was largely based on Hispano-Americanism, which emphasized the spiritual kinship within the Hispanic American community. The Spaniards’ attitude towards Latin America still includes a lot of emotion and sentimentality. They strongly relate to Latin America and primarily attach cultural and spiritual significance to cooperation with the former colonies. At the same time, Latin Americans are much less preoccupied with the ideas of Hispanic American communality than the Spaniards. Spain focuses on the development of relations between the Spanish speaking countries of Latin America and the EU. Leaders of democratic Spain follow the concept of the “bridge” connecting Europe and Latin America and try to impart democratic norms there. In the late 1970 and the 1980s, several Latin American democracies were established. Travelers Adolfo Suárez and Felipe González journeyed throughout Latin America with a democracy transition campaign.

106

According to sociological polls, the Latin Americans of today are familiar with Spanish political leaders no less than with their own298. Spain has always been interested in maintaining ties with Latin America, since its major historical objective has always been the expansion of Catholicism. Ideological expansion in Latin America had already occurred in the course of the conquests. Apparently, the unifying role of religion in Spain’s history dictated that “in order to create a spirit of unity, the population of the newly conquered lands had to be converted to the “true faith”. The outcome of this policy was the centuries-long support of the Vatican in the development of relations between Spain and Latin America. Pope John Paul II spoke in support of the Latin American Summits. Despite the increase in the anticlerical movements in the region, the church continues to play an important role in its political life. Catholicism seeks to increase its influence by focusing on integrating democratic ideals and Christian values. The Vatican’s diplomacy is not limited to direct contact with Latin American governments. Various Catholic Orders, such as “Opus Dei” (the most influential) continue to play an important role in these relations. All three prelates and other key figures in Opus Dei are Spaniards. The Order’s main power is concentrated in the hands of the so-called “cooperants”, i.e., adherents. These are often prominent politicians, academics and journalists. At present, the Order’s secular policy is not only defined by the Vatican, but also Spain. Thus, the diplomacy of the Holy See is closely linked to the Spanish and Latin American elite299. In summary, the present situation is undoubtedly related to the ideas of the Spanish conquistadors, who brought Catholicism to new lands. Religious bonds continue to strengthen the ties between Spain and Spanishspeaking Latin America. Such close ties between Spain and Latin America made the establishment of sub-regional cultural organizations possible. Some of them were founded as counterparties, required to lessen the cultural pressure from the “northern neighbor”. In particular, these include the House of the Americas, founded to enhance cultural cooperation between Latin American states (excluding the USA) in 1959 in Havana300. In 1970, the Andean countries (Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Chile, Panama) and Spain signed the “Andres Bello” agreement on cooperation in the fields of culture, science and education. It has proven itself an effective agreement that helps preserve the cultural identity of the Andean peoples and enhance cultural cooperation. “Andres Bello” member countries address current

107

problems at regular meetings between the Ministers of Education and Culture. The Ibero-American Institute for Cooperation, founded in 1946 in Madrid301, is the key authority that manages cultural cooperation between Spain and Latin America within Hispanophone. It is expending a lot of effort into the organization of congresses, conferences, exhibitions and cultural and scientific exchanges. As part of the “Andres Bello” agreement, it supervises a “Grand Marshal of Ayacucho” scholarship fund for promoting interaction between Andean countries. Besides education, Spain promotes exchange with Latin American countries in other areas. Spanish delegations are regular guests of the International Theatre Festival in Caracas, which is organized as part of the Ibero-American Forum on Integration in cinematography302. This is another indicator of the high level of interaction between the former mother country and its colonies in terms of a mutually enriching dialogue, rather than a clash of cultures. Spanish and Latin American family ties also contribute to the holistic image of the Spanish world. Spaniards point out the groundlessness of Latin American national prejudices in regard to Spain being a purely intra-European nation. Spaniards refer to Latin America as part of the Spanish world, because people who speak Spanish do not belong to one nation alone. They represent the Spanish world, which is based on common human mechanisms, beliefs, experiences, practices, projects, and of course, language. The cultural component of Hispanophone is linked to its historical civilizational base (See Chapter 2), i.e., awareness of the fact that Latin America belongs to the Spanish-speaking world, which leads to the formation of the common cultural and civilizational identity. In this Hispanophonic context, language acts as a major factor of cultural integration, confirming the postulates of linguistic culturology. Hispanophone is a multifaceted process that includes both linguapolitical and lingua-cultural components. As stated in Chapter 1, language plays a significant role in shaping the economic relations. According to Lord Watson303, the success of the economic integration of the Spanishspeaking world is based on linguistic kinship. This phenomenon is caused by the lingua-economic component of the linguistic dimension of global politics, when the sharing a common native language significantly simplifies negotiations and contractual procedures between the countries. The following examples convey the development of economic relations between Spain and Latin America by forming a certain basis of Hispanophone. Spain and other leading countries have realized that in

108

the context of global economic and political globalization, military power gave way to the competition between the number one markets, free trade zone and the status of national or official currencies. These landmarks play the intermediary role in the implementation and protection of national interests. The economic potential, GDP growth rate, low budget deficit and low inflation serve as the foundation of the country’s language policy on the global stage. Foreign economic relations and primarily trade, have a significant impact on Spain’s present economy and the GDP. Spain’s involvement in global trade has doubled since the country became a member of the European Communities. In 2007, this figure was 4.2%. These export development rates are based on active state promotion. During the 1990s, the rate reached 10.5%, while the European average rate was 4.6% and its share of the GDP – 28.1%. According to the last indicator, Spain is still behind most EU countries304. The only region that managed to secure and even strengthen its export in the same period of time was Latin America. From 1985 until 2008, the share of Latin American countries in the Spanish export increased from 4.8% to 6.5%, including the Mercosur countries (0.8% to 2.5%), Argentina (0.4% to 1.2%), Brazil (0.3% to 1.2%) and Mexico (1.0% to 1.1%)305. Today, Spain has only retained a positive foreign trade balance with Latin America (and Eastern Europe), which has doubled since the 1990s. At the same time, Spain’s foreign trade balance is generally experiencing a growing shortage. In recent years, Spanish export to Latin America has undergone a number of changes. The export range was diversified and the amounts of high-tech and expensive industrial goods increased. The share of finished and semi-finished industrial goods increased from 83.3% to 91.2% between 1985 and 1998. At the same time, the share of industrial and agricultural products decreased from 10.3% to 5.9%. So far, Latin America remains a market for the finished products of Spain’s chemical, metal and general engineering industries. The structure of Latin American export to Spain has also seen a number of changes take place over the last decade. The proportion of raw materials has been reduced and the share of finished goods and intermediates has increased. The Latin American export figures are inversely proportioned to the import figures. During the same period, the Latin American share in the Spanish import decreased from 11.1% to 3.9%, including the Mercosur countries (3.2% to 1.6%), Argentina (0.9% to 0.6%), Brazil (2.1% to 0.9%) and Mexico (5.8% to 0.7%). This decrease was caused by Spain’s reorientation towards import from the EU306.

109

Despite the slight increase in Spanish exports to the region, international trade is still less significant than the capital exports and financial services in the framework of Spain’s foreign relations. In the mid-1970s, Spain introduced a policy of liberalization of foreign investment. In the early 1990s it abolished all restrictions on the export of the national capital and its access to international markets. The result of these reforms was an increase in over five-times the total amount of the capital export in the 1990s. Only in 1998-1999, the amount of foreign direct investments doubled307. The growth of Spanish investments in the region was caused not only by the reforms within Spain, but also by the profound changes that took place in the economy of Latin America. These were the liberalization of the markets and the privatization of state assets. Latin America occupies a special place in Spanish foreign investment policy. Once being a bridge between Europe and Latin America, Spain became the largest investor in the region during the last decade. Over five years, Latin America’s share in Spain’s total foreign investment had grown from 29% to 72%308. On account of Spain, European FDI in Latin America exceeded the U.S. FDI. For the first time, Latin America beat Asia and became the world’s largest FDI recipient. European companies managed to occupy key positions in the region, especially in the services sector and infrastructure. As a result, Spanish companies that were hardly present in Latin America in the early 1990s operated alongside the national economic elite by the end of the decade. The introduction of a Single Currency System and the euro area allowed these companies to consider possibilities for expansion. This process was started on the basis of cultural affinity and turned Latin American countries into the region of highest foreign economic activity for the largest Spanish companies. The high investment flow into Latin America started in the early 1990s with the establishment of the largest Spanish companies Telefónica de España and Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España in the regional market. Investments increased in the mid-1990s, especially after such companies as Repsol and Endesa España entered the market. The investment flow rose to a significant level when the Spanish banks Santander Central Hispano (BSCH) and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (BBVA) launched their businesses in the region in 1996. Certainly, smaller Spanish companies are also present in Latin America. By the end of 2007, Spanish companies have invested between 72 and 83 million USD in the region309. Telefónica de España has become one of the most active Spanish investors, which allowed this state monopoly to become a major operator in the European zone. In 2001, it was among the 11 largest telecommunications

110

companies worldwide and the sixth in Europe. It also became a key supplier for the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking populations. Unlike other major international carriers and despite the imminent liberalization of the communications sector in Spain and the EU, Telefónica chose to expand in Latin America, which was a highly potential market that was experiencing a constant demand for investment. Thus, the company managed to retain its leadership position in Spain and expand its influence in other regions. By the end of 2006, Telefónica de España invested over 35 million USD in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, Puerto Rico and Venezuela. It became the largest international carrier in Latin America, due in part to its participation in the privatization of Brazilian company Telebras, which allowed it to control Sao Paulo Telesp station and the two mobile operators Tele Sudeste Celular and Tele Leste Celular. By 2001, Telefónica controlled more communication lines in Latin America than in Spain with 14 out of 30 million customers coming from this region. Every third call in Latin America was provided by one of the companies that belonged to the Spanish investor310. On the account of the capital directed to purchase regional companies, Telefónica became a key investor in the region. In Peru, its investments are twice as high compared to its closest rival, and in Brazil it signed a second contract with Telesp worth 1.56 million USD. The company continued securing its Latin American branches by increasing the proportion of the invested capital through purchasing the stocks and accepting sale offers. Through successful operations, Telefónica’s income in Brazil exceeded the total investments in Argentina, Brazil and Peru amounting to 16.2 million USD311. As a result, the company became the largest foreign investor in Latin America. The company’s course in Latin America was extremely successful. Its status on the international communications stage significantly increased along with the value of its shares on the stock exchange. This allowed Telefónica to expand in other regions. For example, in 2000, Telefónica acquired the Dutch company Endemol, which is one of the largest production companies312. Telefónica became a major international operator, being present on the steadily developing Latin American and the Spanish-speaking U.S. markets and at the same time in the EU, one of the key regions in the world. The introduction of a single monetary system and the liberalization of the EU communications and electricity markets destabilized the status of the Spanish companies in these sectors. Therefore, their new objectives were to find regions that required economic investment. Latin America

111

provided opportunities for these companies to expand their network and strengthen their competitiveness against the leading European companies. Since the early 1990s companies such as Endesa España, Iberdrola and later Unión Fenosa invested 15 million USD in Latin America313. The largest Spanish electricity company Endesa started investing in Argentina and then Chile. However, its main objective has always been to enter the Brazilian market. A strategic alliance with the Chilean company Enersis was established for this reason. Enersis is by far the largest company in Latin America with an extensive network in Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Colombia and Peru. In late 1997, the Spanish company acquired 29% of the Enersis’ assets in Chile. In two weeks, the consortium absorbed the Brazilian Companhia Energética do Ceará, which meant a breakthrough into the large Brazilian market. Tense relations with the Chilean company made Endesa revise its expansion policy, which was now aimed at controlling its partner. After lengthy negotiations, it managed to acquire 32% of Enersis in March of 1999. In a relatively short period of time, Endesa became the leading foreign investor in the energy sector of Latin America, controlling a quarter of the regional production and 30% of electrical distribution314. In 2001, Endesa merged with another energy giant Iberdrola, which resulted in the establishment of a new company Endesa-Iberdrola. It has been active in the Latin American markets, especially in Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Bolivia. In recent years, the company increased its interest in the gas industry. The largest contract to be signed in the energy sector of Latin America was the acquisition of the shares of the Argentine company Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales (YPF) by the Spanish company Repsol in 1999. The contractual sum was 12.5 billion USD, which secured Repsol a place among the world’s leading energy companies. By 2001, the Spanish Repsol invested 20 billion USD in the region, predominantly in Argentina. Currently, Repsol-YPF is operating in 24 countries, including Spain, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Venezuela, etc315. The transformation that brought 140% growth in revenue to the company in 2006, proved to be very successful, even surpassing the revenues of Telefónica316. Another Spanish company in the Latin American energy sector is Fenosa, which entered the international market as late as 1998. This company produces and distributes electricity and aims to diversify its activities. It has become involved in water and gas supply, transportation infrastructure and even telecommunications and communications. In Latin

112

America, it operates in Mexico, Uruguay, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic and Panama. The situation in the Latin American banking sector in regard to Spanish capital developed in a similar way. The first Spanish capital investments in this region have resulted in a large-scale inflow of foreign companies. The reason for this was financial liberalization, which was considered to be the most efficient way for Latin America to build a direct connection to international investment flows. Latin American legislation had to be substantially modified. For example, foreign banks in Argentina were allowed to freely open branches and offices in 1994. A similar reform occurred in Colombia, where the financial sector remained closed until the end of the 1980s. Peru introduced a system of free competition between national and foreign credit institutions without any discrimination against the latter317. The establishment of open banking systems in the 1990s became a region-wide trend. Major factors in attracting foreign capital were the deregulation of national economies, reduction of barriers to portfolio investments and empowerment of foreign operators in regard to securities. Apart from following the growing trend towards the globalization of financial markets, Spanish banks sought to achieve a number of internal goals when entering the Latin American market. Both the acquisition of regional assets and internal growth allowed the banks to reinforce their position in the EU within the framework of the single currency system, avoid absorption by larger European financial groups and increase profitability. In Spain, the development of large financial groups started in the 1980s. In 1996, the share of the top five groups increased to 50%318. The ongoing expansion had to be secured and the Latin American markets provided suitable opportunities for the Spanish banks. That is, the Spanish banks entered these developing and less competitive markets, which had lower technological, organizational and managerial capacity and offered numerous unoccupied niches for business and high-margin operations. In addition, the old top banks in Latin America could foresee the challenges of competing against the new foreign investors and preferred an alliance to disappearance. As a result, the two largest Spanish banks Santander Central Hispano (BSCH) and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (BBVA) were able to quickly set foot in the regional economy by investing more than 25.4 million USD319. These factors provided favorable conditions for the Spanish banks to develop the Latin American markets. In 1999 they owned approximately one third of all assets shared between the top 20 foreign credit institutions in the region320.

113

Santander, being the largest financial group in Spain and having 39 million customers in 40 countries, is highly active in Latin America. It started operating in the region in the 1950s, but was restricted by the Central American countries. Its substantial acquisitions in Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, Mexico, Puerto Rico and Peru took place much later and the most extensive operations were carried out in the second half of the 1990s. These included the acquisition of a controlling stake in the Venezuelan Banco de Venezuela, Peruvian Banco Mercantil e Interandino, Colombian Bancoquia, Mexican financial group InverMéxico and one of the largest commercial banks in Argentina, Banco Rio de la Plata. In 1997, Santander managed to enter the most demanding market in the region, Brazil, after receiving permission to acquire Banco Noroeste do Brasil and Banco Geral do Comércio. In total, BSCH owns 15 banks in Latin America. The bank’s claim of leadership was enhanced in 2000, when it won the auctions and acquired the Brazilian state bank Banespa (Banco do Estado de São Paulo) with assets worth 15 billion USD and a large network of branches both within the country and abroad321. Santander is ahead of all other foreign banks in regard to the investment flow in the region. From 1996 until 2001, Santander’s share of income generated in the region increased from 8% to 68%322. BBVA, the second largest bank in Spain, is close behind Banco Santander. They compete in both Spanish and Latin American markets. After reviewing its strategy in 1995, BBVA started expanding on the international level. Its strategy was based on management goals rather than on ownership. By 1998, BBVA ranked third by the volume of its assets in Latin America after Banco Santander and the U.S. Citibank. In 2000, BBVA took control of the second largest Mexican group and became the first in Mexico and the second in Latin America after BSCH323. In 2001, BBVA adopted a new regional policy, determined to reacquire 100% of its subsidiaries’ assets in Argentina and Colombia. For that reason, it acquired 32% of Argentina’s Banco Francés and 14% of Banco Ganadero de Colombo. BBVA admitted that this change occurred due to the economic crisis in the region, which caused a significant decrease in prices324. At the same time, Pedro Luis Uriarte, Vice President of BBVA said that the offices in Latin America would become more cost-effective due to expected economic improvements in the region. This estimation was probably based on the fact that the bank’s revenues in Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Puerto Rico, Panama, and Peru were 80% higher than expected in 1999, which was caused by the rapid development of its branches. At the same time, the bank’s revenues were equal to those expected in Brazil and Venezuela, and even less than those expected in Colombia325.

114

The appearance of Spanish companies in the Latin American markets has become a key phenomenon of the present-day Latin American economic development. It was only possible because of the “linguistic kinship” between the countries. The significance of this region for the Spanish foreign policy has been steadily growing and has reached a level that could not be reached on the sole account of historical and cultural ties. In a short time, a select number of companies with little or no international experience held leadership roles in key economic areas of Latin America. This had a positive impact on the cost and quality of regional services as well as the international status of the companies. As a result, Spanish business was able to cope with the problems originating within the EU and did not allow the larger and more developed European competitors to force it out of the EU markets. At present, the Latin American entrepreneurs are concerned with the scope of Spanish activity in the region. The companies’ strong attachment to Spain poses certain risks on Latin America. At the same time, the region is still in need of foreign investment, and the Spanish presence contributes to its economic growth and secures the ties with the rest of the EU. Therefore, the only possible limitation for the countries is to develop mechanisms for capital monitoring. In addition, the processes of European integration are likely to entail the reorientation of the Spanish companies toward the European market. In recent years, the economy of the Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America has undergone major transformations that have secured its stability on the account of the economic component of Hispanophone. The processes based on the formation of the Hispanic lingua-political model of the modern world are not able to lead to the implementation of reforms, which can accelerate general economic growth. The analyzed economic component of Hispanophone demonstrates the fusion of Hispanic economies and their willingness to cooperate and exchange experiences in the field of technological and economic development. In other words, a common language based on the sub-civilizational tradition, leads to the intensification of economic contacts. Hispanophone is a multifaceted lingua-political movement that exists within a certain lingua-political, lingua-cultural and lingua-economic infrastructure. Political, cultural and economic components are powerful integration mechanisms that shape Hispanophone by means of establishing a segmentary network of diverse governmental and non-governmental organizations.

115

3.3. Hispanophone. Prospects and Challenges Hispanophone is a multifaceted lingua-political process that implies a set of relations and events, as well as a complex cultural, economic and political infrastructure. Since Hispanophone does not have the status of an official international organization, its infrastructure is rather difficult to define. Respectively, it is hard to make a clear prediction in regard to its future development. Despite the difficulties and negative trends associated with this linguapolitical movement, the author will frame several fact-based assumptions about the future of Hispanophone. It needs to be emphasized that Hispanophone implies the expansion of Spanish as a native and foreign language. According to the latest data provided by the Cervantes Institute, Spanish is now native to 5.7% of the world’s population326. Due to its demographic potential, it is likely to be native to 8.5%327 of the global population by 2030. This trend will continue in the coming decades due to the expansion of the Spanish language in North America, which will considerably elevate the status of the Spanish language in particular, and Hispanophone in general. According to the estimates of the Cervantes Institute, the U.S. might become the largest “Hispanic” country by 2050328. In this context, the author will analyze the confrontation between the English and Spanish languages in North America and the role of Hispanophone in this process. Hispanophone is likely to oppose the processes of Anglophone, i.e., the expansion of English as a serious lingua-political reality in the modern world. The historical nature of the two processes is very different. Unlike the Anglo-Saxon colonization model, the Spanish “discovery” and conquest of contemporary Latin America has to be perceived through the cultural, psychological and linguistic nature of the Spanish nation. For centuries, Spaniards lived in close contact with the Arab-Muslim conquerors, which were “filled with fantastic aura of spirituality”329. Then they became part of the powerful religious and ideological world of Catholicism. The main conductor of Catholicism was its communicative culture, i.e., the Spanish language, education, press, literature and music. That is, Spanish colonization led to the complex and multi-dimensional process of evolution and fusion of Hispanic cultures. In the course of colonial evolution, Anglophone managed to secure a more solid position in the region until the end of the 20th century. In the 1950-60s, Latin America was referred to as a U.S. “reserve”. By the end of the 20th century the American influence in the region was exhausted. It did not disappear, but simply took softer forms of mutual influence.

116

This development requires a more detailed analysis in the context of Hispanophone. Such Russian scholars of Latin America as V. Travkin and V. Davydov refer to the U.S. as one more Hispanic country, where immigrants from Latin America and, above all, Mexico330 form its largest national minority. Mexico is strongly influenced by the U.S. both in political relations and everyday life. The once unique Mexico now copies its northern neighbor not only on the level of popular culture, but as a result of strong economic fusion. When Mexican immigrants to the U.S. are asked about their identity, they prefer to stay Mexicans yet adopt the American “blessings of civilization and respect for the law”331. This is the level of cultural and linguistic fusion of the Hispanic and North Americas, i.e., the U.S. influence in Mexico co-exists with the Hispanic influence in North America. According to V. Travkin, “this is not only the influence of tequila, Mexican and Chilean cuisines”332. There is a steady capital flow from Spanish-speaking Latin America in the U.S. The latter has changed from the producer into consumer nation. A lot of their supplies are produced in Latin America. For example, all “Volkswagen” engine parts for the vehicles assembled in the U.S. are made in Mexico. Another example comes from the Mexican media, which stretches to the Spanish-speaking U.S., Ibero-America and even Africa. Thus, the Inter-American cross-influence is a product of a multi-faceted system of relations. The U.S. is going to play a major role in the development of Hispanophone as a global movement. Previously, the author referred to the possible future collapse of the U.S. on linguistic grounds. According to an anonymous author hiding behind the initials R.H., who strongly opposes this prediction, “scholars like Samuel Huntington blackmail their own population with the invasion of Latin American immigrants, which will surely cause the U.S. to split into two hostile cultures. Similarly, their Russian clones frighten with the invasion of the Chinese Horde into Siberia or the transformation of Moscow into a Babylon for migrants”333. Surely, Washington is concerned by the lingua-political, social and cultural problems, which are caused by both legal and illegal Hispanic immigration. Thus, a large number of the Cubans in Florida that occupy prominent positions in business both on state and national levels prevent the U.S. from removing the economic embargo against Cuba. According to A. Ignatov, Miami does not become left-wing just because the anti-Castro group is losing its influence in Miami. The scholar refers to data that is relevant for understanding the process of Hispanization in the U.S. “Some have argued the birth of second Cuba in the last half-century. It is located just 90 miles from the island, in Miami. In fact, the business capital of the North American state of Florida is

117

considered to be the “Wall Street of Latin America” and speaks exclusively Spanish. For a long period of time, the center of the Cuban immigration was the 8th Street in Little Havana, which took in the first “Fidel” fugitives in 1959. They were supporters of Batista; big businessmen, professionals, salesmen, former high-ranking officials and, of course, gangsters and criminals of all sorts. This is where revolution conspiracies and sabotages against its leaders were forged for a quarter of a century. Indeed, the ultra-right Cubans controlled the city of Miami using the means brought from Cuba, receiving support from the ten U.S. presidents and through emigration control of local media334. Hispanic population settles mainly around the English-speaking states and towns, or establishes enclaves, thus creating a major political and linguistic zone. The intra-territorial Hispanic relations are formed within such zones by establishing a certain spiritual, human and socio-political complex, different from their English-speaking neighbors. The main objective of the U.S. government is to unite this not yet established closed zone and the English-speaking space. According to the last population census, there are 35 million native Spanish-speakers in the U.S.335 Tracking the objective processes that occur on the levels of the U.S. foreign and internal policies is inseparable from the processes within Hispanophone. The lingua-political course of North America can drastically affect the main linguaphonic trends in the region. The fact is that Anglo-Spanish bilingualism is a common phenomenon in the U.S. that results in the emergence of pidgins. Such “dangerous” trends as Spanglish can transform into a separate linguaphonic trend that can threaten both Hispanophone and Anglophone. Spanglish, as one of the most negative effects of linguaphonic diffusion, has to be further analyzed in the context of Hispanophone. Both legal and illegal immigration flow from Latin American countries to the U.S. tends to increase. This is essentially due to the large illegal labor market, which is a socio-economic phenomenon that emerged in the U.S. during World War II336. The continuing influx of Latin American immigrants in the U.S. set economic, political, and intercultural challenges for the American community. Liberalization of the U.S. immigration policy has already led to significant changes in all aspects of North American society. Undoubtedly, a large number of Spanish-speaking Latin American immigrants have altered the language ratio within the U.S. population by spreading bilingualism. The aspects of U.S. everyday life, where Spanish is used on a regular basis, help map the areas of Spanish and English language propagation337. However, the differences in the choice of the communication language are largely dependent on the period of residence in the U.S, i.e., the older generation of immigrants prefer Spanish, while 96% of Spanish native speakers born

118

in North America use both languages equally. Thus, both languages in the U.S. experience lingua-political changes that were initiated by the Latin American ethnic community. Partial bilingualism, i.e., poor knowledge of one of the languages has led to the emergence of “Spanglish”, a linguistic mixture of Spanish and English. The differences between Englishspeaking and Spanish-speaking communities are quite latent. For example, according to the Dade County Secondary School (Miami)338 enrollment statistic, the number of Spanish-speaking students increased by 67% in the period of 13 years. David Crystal described this process as “the inevitable Latinization” of schools339. Newspapers, magazines and Internet sources widely discuss this hybrid language. N.F. Miheyeva, a Russian scholar of the Spanish language in the south-western states of the U.S., defines Spanglish as both Americanized Spanish and Hispanicized English340. According to recent studies of the Cervantes Institute, Spanglish, being a code of the Hispanic population, remains a neutral language and, according to Isidro Sepúlveda, Asnares and Watson, has the potential to become a unitary language in the U.S. Spanish and English do not only confront each other in North America. Such “soft” conflicts are also noticeable in Latin America under the U.S. lingua-political influence. The U.S. cultural expansion into Latin America has never weakened. One example was the establishment of the Organization of American States under the auspices of the U.S. in order to create an Inter-American Council for Culture. Equally significant is the establishment of the Argentine-American Cultural Institute in Buenos Aires, the US-Mexican Institute of Cultural Relations in Mexico City, the American-Peruvian Cultural Institute in Lima and several others. A good example is the Uruguayan linguistic policy that made English compulsory in schools starting in 2000. In regard to the U.S., the government is making considerable investments in the Spanish-speaking regions, trying to promote the American way of life and the English language. Some 500 newspapers in Spanish are published in the U.S. In addition, CNN en Español341, has been broadcasting in Spanish throughout the U.S. and Latin America. It promotes pro-American views displacing the Spanish channel Antena 3. Many similar examples demonstrate the influence of the U.S. on the Spanish-speaking Latin America and indicate the fusion of cultures in the Americas, as well as the interaction and mutual influence of their languages. Hispanophone’s most intimate and natural allies are countries with the Romance culture, whose language is related to Spanish. In this context, there exists a unique possibility for the integration of Hispanophone and Lusophone that unites the Portuguese-speaking countries. This is the legacy

119

of the Spanish and Portuguese colonization that supported the formation of the national states, forged the ideological tradition and gave Spanish and Portuguese their roles as major languages. According to O.B. Yanush342, Mercosur is going to play a leading role during the integration of these lingua-political spaces. R. Hamel343 suggests that this South American bloc provides a unique opportunity for cultural integration and represents the geo-linguistic dynamics in the region, since its official languages are Spanish and Portuguese. Mercosur’s language policy is aimed at the propagation of its official languages through educational systems and management of academic, legal, administrative, and information resources. In 2000, the Mercosur Ministers of Education ratified a program of integration in education, which includes a language section. In accordance with this section, Portuguese is a compulsory second language in the Spanishspeaking countries and Spanish – a compulsory second language in Brazil. O.B. Yanush344 and several other scholars believe that language integration is a prerequisite for the economic and political integration of the Mercosur bloc. This once again demonstrates the unique role of lingua-political trends in contemporary global politics. It is primarily a new form of mass bilingualism, which will ensure free and wide-ranging communication within the unified market. However, the integration of Hispanophone and Lusophone will pose challenges in association with the transition from national monolingual identity to multicultural regional identity based on the unified central bilingual Spanish-Portuguese form345. These challenges will become less significant when the Spanish-Portuguese entity collides with the English language. Another area of concern is created by the differences in the language policies of various Spanish-speaking Latin American countries, in particular Uruguay and Paraguay that often advocate English as a global language of international communication, thus excluding Portuguese as a recognized foreign language. The example of Mercosur indicates that the general knowledge of Spanish and Portuguese in Latin America is an important integration component and a suitable condition for the favorable cooperation between the countries. According to a number of linguists who study the use of language, the Brazilian Portuguese language is becoming similar to Latin American Spanish. In his book “Adventures of the Spanish Language in America” Humberto López Morales points out that the Ibero-American sub-civilization is going to become as assimilated as the Hispanic American civilizational community when the whole of Ibero-America starts speaking the same language346. His theory is based on the study of pidgins that were formed as a fusion of Portuguese and Spanish, such as Fronterizo and others. López Morales is convinced that Latin American Spanish and Portuguese will finally blend, thus forming

120

an entirely new “Latin Americanized” language standard, which will inherit some basic features of Spanish and contain elements of Portuguese. According to the scholar, this scenario alone will lead to the formation of one hybrid lingua-political space, which will be a fusion of Lusophone and Hispanophone, i.e., the Portuguese- and Spanish-speaking worlds. Numerous Spanish-speaking countries are likely to take on the leadership role in the integration process within this community. The popularity of Spanish as a foreign language is a relevant factor for Hispanophone. Hispanization that has developed through Hispanophone is a term coined by the Royal Academy of Language in 1914. It stands for the propagation of the Spanish language and culture on the global level347. The first Castilian grammar book for foreigners by Antonio de Nebrija was published as early as 1492348. The majority of Spanish learners come from the U.S., EU, Japan, Southeast Asia and the Maghreb countries. Learning Spanish in the U.S. is a result of historical influence dated back to the 17th century. Some 1000 Spanish centers exist in the U.S. The country has developed a solid platform for teaching Spanish. Mara Vilar writes in her book “Spanish, the second language in the U.S.”349 that Spanish predominates in Texas, California, Florida, Louisiana and New York. By 2050, it may become the number one language in the U.S.350 More and more English-speaking Americans are interested in learning Spanish. In 1990, 61.7% of students chose Spanish as a second language and in 2005 – 87%. From 1986 until 1990, the number of Spanish departments at the universities increased by 70%. The number of students, who learn Spanish as a foreign language in the United States, is approximately six million351. Studying Spanish in Brazil became popular ten years ago. Historical ties between Brazil and Spain can be traced back to the beginning of the 16th century, when a wave of Spanish immigration hit Brazil. The Mercosur Agreement (1991) between Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil provided a future for the Spanish language by making it its official language352. According to the latest data from the Cervantes Institute, the number of Spanish learners in Brazil slightly exceeds one million people353. Considering the population of the country, it is not a large number. However, the growth prospect for the number of Spanish learners is significant. Learning Spanish in China or the Philippines also has its roots in the 16th century, when the first Spanish missionaries appeared there. China first offered Spanish lessons in 1952. The language is now taught in more than 20 universities across the country. The number of Spanish learners in China is approaching 200,000. In the Philippines, it is 20,000 people. Japan has been widely offering Spanish courses since 1897. There are 18 Spanish philology departments at the universities with the total number of students

121

of Spanish as a foreign language ranging between 60 and 70 thousand. Japan’s close relation to Spanish can also be explained by the fact that Peru has a large Japanese diaspora. Japan’s diaspora policy regarding Peru, Brazil and other Ibero-American countries is aimed at the propagation of the Japanese language and at the same time “compensatory” measures related to Spanish in Japan. Spanish has been taught in Korea since 1948. It is now offered in 14 universities and three military academies. In Europe, learning Spanish became a trend in the 16th century. In the 19th century, Spanish established itself on the university level. There are currently 130 university departments that offer Spanish. The number of Spanish learners in the Romance departments at the universities is higher than the number of French students. There are more than 3,000,000 students studying Spanish in the EU. According to the Cervantes Institute, the numbers of students that study Spanish as a foreign language across the world are: 7,099,664 in the Americas, 3,498,766 in Europe, 511,186 in Africa and 350,000 in Asia354. Official statistic indicates that there are more than 12 million non-native Spanish speakers in the world355. This figure is likely to rise to 14 million in the next years because of the increasing number of students in Europe and the Americas356. This trend reflects the internal relations within the Spanish-speaking community. In this study, Spain has been repeatedly referred to as an intermediary between Europe and Latin America. The data related to the status of Spanish in Europe, North and South America once again demonstrates the scale of influence of Hispanophone. The popularity of Spanish across the world is driven by economic, political, cultural and purely linguistic interests. The development of Hispanophone is hindered by a number of negative circumstances both on internal and international levels. The internal circumstance is the manifestation of national separatism in the Spanish provinces, which has a negative impact on the status of Spanish in Spain. On the international level, it is the “struggle” of Spanish and English for influence in Latin America. Until now, English has been more advantageous than Spanish. Another problem is the transformation of Ibero-American Spanish into “Spanglish”357, i.e., the U.S. form of the Spanish language. Hispanophone will confront Anglophone in coalition with other linguapolitical movements, such as Francophone and Lusophone. Alliance between Hispanophone and Lusophone is likely to be highly beneficial, which is already evident from the example of Mercosur. Hispanophone defines the movement that is aimed at elevating the position of Spanish as an official language of numerous nations and also the language that is spoken by millions of people outside these countries.

122

Hispanophone implies the propagation of the Spanish language, Spanish culture, Ibero-American civilizational communality as well as the creation of the corresponding lingua-political and culturological infrastructure. In a broader sense, it is an organic part of the linguistic dimension of global politics. Hispanophonic values, processes and structures exist on both political and cultural levels. The cultural space is more mobile, dynamic and less conservative than the politics. Hispanophone’s political influence often crosses regional borders and becomes universal, thus confirming the global nature of Hispanophone and its inclusion in world politics as an independent process that is logically integrated in the modern political system of the world. However, Hispanophone reflects globalization and regionalization of global politics on both internal and international levels.

Narumov B.P. Ispanskiy yazyk// Yazyki mira. – M., 2001. – pp. 415, 416. Aznarez J.J./ Vicent M. La declaracion final de la Cumbre recogera el rechazo a cualquier extraterritorialidad. // El Pais. 15.11.1991 270 Davydov V.M. Latinskaya Amerika v mirovoy sisteme/Sovremennye mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya i mirovaya politika. – M., 2005. – p. 684. 271 Romanova G.S. Ispanskiy yazyk segodnya i zavtra//Mir i Rossiya na poroge XXI veka. – M., 2001. – p. 312. 272 Berdnikova L.P., Gurova N.V. O sovremennom statuse ispanskogo yazyka v SShA. http://pn.pglu.ru/ 273 Romanova G.S. Ispanskiy yazyk segodnya i zavtra//Mir i Rossiya na poroge XXI v. – M., 2001. – p. 311. 274 Mnogo yazykov – odna Amerika// Gazeta. http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2005/ 0195/gazeta025.php 275 Mekheeva N.F. Ispanskiy yazyk na territorii yugo-zapadnykh shtatov Ameriki: Monografiya. – M.: Izd-vo RUDN, 2002. – p. 35. 276 Mekheeva N.F. Ispanskiy yazyk na territorii yugo-zapadnykh shtatov Ameriki: Monografiya. – M.: Izd-vo RUDN, 2002. – pp. 36-37. 277 Berdnikova L.P., Gurova N.V. O sovremennom statuse ispanskogo yazyka v SShA- M., 2001. – p. 24. 278 Vystavochnyy tsentr «Institut Servantesa»// http://map.moscowout.ru/art/exhibitions/ 111930/ 279 Enciclopedia del Español en el Mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2006-2007: Instituto Cervantes, Madrid 2007. 280 ibid. 281 Enciclopedia del Español en el Mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2007-2008: Instituto Cervantes, Madrid 2008. – p. 398. 282 Cumbre Iberoamericana. http://www.mre.gov.br/CDBRASIL/ITAMARATY/WEB/ espanhol/relext/mre/orgreg/cupula/index.htm 283 ibid. 284 Ruiz Gimenez G. Hacia la integracion. // El Pais. Extra. Fin de siglo en America Latina. 14.06.1994. 268 269

123

285 Larraya J.M. Aznares J.J. La declaracion de Vina del Mar defiende el modelo democratico y rechaza el autiritarismo. // El pais. 12.11.1996. 286 Larraya J.M. Garcia J. La Cumbre Iberoamericana pedira la reforma del sistema financiero internacional.// El Pais. 17.10.1998. 287 Larraya J.M. Garcia J. Ayuda urgente para salir de crisis.// El Pais/ 19.10.1998. 288 Ispaniya sokhranit pomoshch’ Latinskoy Amerike na urovne $ 1,5 mlrd. v god. http:// www.pr.kg/articles/n0069/6914-int.html 289 Chavesa zastavili zamolchat’. http://www.gzt.ru/world/2007/11/11/220026.html 290 Chavesa zastavili zamolchat’. http://www.gzt.ru/world/2007/11/11/220026.html 291 Mikheeva N.F. Ispanskiy yazyk na territorii yugo-zapadnykh shtatov Ameriki: Monografiya. – M.: Izd-vo RUDN, 2002. – pp. 22-23. 292 A. Grachev Global’nyy – ne znachit odnotsvetnyy//Novoe vremya, 2001. № 5. – pp. 26-27. 293 S. Khantington. Stolknovenie tsivilizatsiy/per.s angliyskogo, M.: Izd-vo AST, 2003. – p. 204. 294 Stepanov M.S. Poiski putey sblizheniya. // Latinskaya Amerika. 1999. №12 295 Foreword by Commissioner Chris Patten. http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/world/lac/ index.htm 296 Aseev R.M. Itogi predsedatel’stva Ispanii v ES v pervoy polovine 2002 goda: «bol’she Evropy» ili natsional’nykh interesov? http://www.edc.spb.ru/conf2002/aseev.htm 297 Stepanov M.S. Poiski putey sblizheniya. // Latinskaya Amerika. 1999. №12. - p. 40. 298 Prokhorenko I.L. Natsional’nyy interes vo vneshney politike gosudarstva: opyt sovremennoy Ispanii. M. 1995. 299 Pavlova E.B. Portugaliya i Ispaniya v ibero-amerikanskom integratsionnom proekte.// Portugaliya i integratsionnye aspekty v sovremennom mire: politicheskie aspekty. SPb. 2001. - p. 70. 300 Ermol’eva E.G. Latinoamerikanskie vneshnie kul’turnye svyazi: institutsional’nyy aspekt//Latinskaya Amerika i mirovaya kul’tura. M.:Institut Latinskoy Ameriki RAN, 1995. – p. 207. 301 ibid, pp. 207-208. 302 ibid, p. 211. 303 Watson A. Jamestown: The Voyage of English. – L: ESU, 2007. – p. 45. 304 Sinel’shchikova I.G. Ispaniya - Latinskaya Amerika: novye tendentsii vo vneshneekonomicheskikh svyazyakh. \\ Latinskaya Amerika. 2008. №12. – p. 40. 305 ibid, p. 42. 306 ibid, p. 44. 307 El Pais. 16.02.2001 308 Klechenov G.E. Perspektivy Latinskoy Ameriki v sovremennom mire. \\ Latinskaya Amerika. 2000. №9 309 Calderon A. Las inversions espanolas ?una apuesta arriesgada? \\ Vanguardia. 2007. №4. 310 ibid. 311 ibid. 312 ibid. 313 ibid. 314 Sinel’shchikova I.G. Ispaniya – Latinskaya Amerika: novye tendentsii vo vneshneekonomicheskikh svyazyakh.\\ Latinskaya Amerika. 2001. №12 315 ibid. 316 El Pais. 17.05.2007. 317 Sheremet’ev I.K. Kholodkov N.N. Inostrannye banki v regione. Masshtaby i posledstviya ekspansii. \\ Latinskaya Amerika. 2001. №8.

124

ibid. Calderon A. Las inversions espanolas ?una apuesta arriesgada? \\ Vanguardia. 2003. №4 320 Sheremet’ev I.K. Kholodkov N.N. Inostrannye banki v regione. Masshtaby i posledstviya ekspansii. \\ Latinskaya Amerika. 2001. №8. 321 ibid. 322 Calderon A. Las inversions espanolas ?una apuesta arriesgada? \\ Vanguardia. 2003. №4 323 Sheremet’ev I.K. Kholodkov N.N. Inostrannye banki v regione. Masshtaby i posledstviya ekspansii. \\ Latinskaya Amerika. 2001. №8. 324 Barron I. El BBVA lanza dos OPA para controlar el 100% de sus filiales en Argentina y Colombia. \\ El Pais. 24.01.2001. 325 Barron I. El BBVA gana el 27,9% mas en 2000 con fuerte crecimiento de Latinoamerika. \\ El Pais. 25.01.2001. 326 Enciclopedia del Español en el Mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2007-2008: Instituto Cervantes, Madrid 2008. – p. 483. 327 ibid, p. 483. 328 ibid, p. 483. 329 Subichus B.Yu. Novyy svet i kul’tura Novogo vremeni// Latinskaya Amerika i mirovaya kul’tura. M.:Institut Latinskoy Ameriki RAN, 1995. – p. 19. 330 “Chto delat’?” s edinstvom mnogoobraziya//Latinskaya Amerika.2007. № 4 – pp. 26-30. 331 ibid, p. 28. 332 “Chto delat’?” s edinstvom mnogoobraziya//Latinskaya Amerika. 2007. № 4. – p. 32. 333 R.Kh. Poteplenie tsiframi//Politicheskiy zhurnal, 2004. №13(16). – p. 50. 334 A. Ignatov Kubinskiy shans// Nezavisimaya gazeta-Dipkur’er. 02.02.2009. 335 Aznarez J.J./ Larraya J.M. La globalizacion y Los Estados Unidos. // El Pais. 16.10.1999 336 Latinoamerikanskaya diaspora v SShA/Otv. red. B.I. Koval’; Institut Latinskoy Ameriki. – M.: Nauka, 2003. – p. 111. 337 ibid, p. 178. 338 ibid, p. 182. 339 Crystal D. English as a Global Language. Cambridge University Press. 1997. – p. 34. 340 Mikheeva N.F. Ispanskiy yazyk na territorii yugo-zapadnykh shtatov Ameriki: Monografiya. – M.: Izd-vo RUDN, 2002. 341 Enciclopedia del Español en el Mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2007-2008: Instituto Cervantes, Madrid 2008. – p. 485. 342 Yanush O.B. Yazykovye aspekty integratsii stran Merkosur//Latinskaya Amerika. 2006. №10. – p. 49. 343 R. Hamel. Regional Blocs as a Barrier against English Hgemony? The Language Policy of Mercosur in South America. Cambridge, 2004. – p. 115. 344 Yanush O.B. Yazykovye aspekty integratsii stran Merkosur//Latinskaya Amerika. 2006. №10 345 ibid, p. 51. 346 Lópes Morales. La Aventura Del Español en América: Editorial Espasa Calpe, S. A., 2005 347 Perspectivas Exteriores 2004. Los Intereses de Espana en el Mundo: PEBN, Madrid, 2004. - p. 155. 348 Larraya J.M./ Aznarez J.J. La Cumbre de Iberoamerica llama la atencion sobre la etica democratica. // El Pais. 07.11.1997 349 Gomes Dacal, Gonzalo. La poblacion hispana de Estados Unidos: Madrid, 2001. – p. 169. 350 Gomes Dacal, Gonzalo. El espanol en las ensenanzas primaria y secundaria de Estados Unidos: Madrid, 2000. – pp. 154-157. 318 319

125

351 Enciclopedia del Español en el Mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2007-2008: Instituto Cervantes, Madrid 2008. – p. 26. 352 Perspectivas Exteriores 2004. Los Intereses de Espana en el Mundo: PEBN, Madrid, 2004. 353 Enciclopedia del Español en el Mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2007-2008: Instituto Cervantes, Madrid 2008. – p. 25. 354 ibid, p. 32. 355 ibid, p. 32. 356 ibid, p. 32. 357 Gomes Dacal, Gonzalo. El espanol en las ensenanzas primaria y secundaria de Estados Unidos: Madrid, 2000. - pp. 154-157.

126

Conclusion In 1999, the General Conference of UNESCO proclaimed February 21 an International Mother Language Day, which has been observed every year since 2000. The global lingua-political effect of this observance is rather significant. Public interest in the protection and support of both minor and “global club” languages (English, Chinese, Spanish, German, Russian, Arabic and French) has increased. 2001 was the European Year of Languages. Among its objectives was drawing attention to the status of minority languages, primarily in the European countries. The EU has adopted a Charter for Minority Languages. The OSCE has appointed a High Commissioner on National Minorities, who monitors the status of minority languages and the socio-economic situation of these minorities. At the initiative of Belgium and Kazakhstan, an interparliamentary colloquium “Mechanisms for inter-ethnic, cross-cultural and inter-regional stability and harmony” was held in Brussels in 2004. It was attended by parliament members of 23 European countries. It focused on human security as an integral part of the global international security. The topics for discussion included the protection of language and cultural diversity in the world and rejection of linguistic uniformization. Language status on the national level is the subject of bilateral or multilateral negotiations between the involved countries, e.g. Russia - Ukraine in regard to the Russian language or Finland - Russia as well as Estonia - Russia in regard to the FinnoUgric languages. International organizations become involved in assessing the lingua-political situations in a country, group of countries or even the global community. One of the most versatile documents demonstrating this contribution is the Declaration of the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, adopted on December 18, 1992 by the UN General Assembly. All the aforementioned facts indicate their belonging to the linguistic dimension of global politics, which also comprises such solid linguapolitical movements as Hispanophone, Francophone, Lusophone, Germanophone, Finno-Ugric Sphere, Pan-Turkism, Pan-Arabism, etc. All of these movements have become a significant part of the modern world.

127

Their course of development affects the political future of countries, regions and even the global community, which is directly linked to globalization and particularly to the transformation of English into a global, crosscontinental language. This transformation is opposed by French, Spanish and other international languages, the corresponding lingua-political movements, their institutions and numerous campaigns. According to the analysis of Hispanophone in the context of the linguistic dimension of global politics, linguistic, lingua-culturological, lingua-economic, lingua-ecological, sociolinguistic and lingua-political approaches form an integral part of complex language studies, which become the conceptual base, the quintessence for the creation of the theoretical lingua-political component of the international relations study. All of these approaches find application in this research and help to point out the complexity of Hispanophone. All Spanish-speaking nations consider the following characteristics when planning their internal and foreign linguistic policies: language as a means to express the worldview of the Spanish-speaking world, language as a conductor of the “Spanishspeaking culture”, language as a source of contradictions in international relations between Ibero-America and the U.S., language as an element that influences economic relations between Latin America and Spain, Latin America and the European Union and language as a tool for global political influence used by the Spanish-speaking countries. Global Spanishlanguage policy is part of Hispanophone as a global movement of the 21st century. The study of language as a global political factor requires the analysis of language policy and lingua-political interactions between the countries in the international arena. Language policy is closely linked to the geopolitical status of the country and affects its geopolitical space. The prevalence of the Spanish language is an indicator of the Spanish and Latin American status in the world arena in the context of globalization. Spain’s leading role in Hispanophone secures its dominant influence in the Spanish-speaking world, the relations between the EU and Latin America and the competition against the English language. The modern lingua-political space is multidimensional, and many languages tend to oppose the general hegemony of English. However, a large number of researchers in the field of global lingua-political processes do not consider “globalization under the auspices of the English language” a serene scenario. The greatest concern is that English could threaten the diversity of national languages, “simplify” the culture of different nations and impose Anglo-American viewpoints and values. This culture, which is reflected in the language, can absorb all other cultures. Thus, the plan of such lingua-political movements as Hispanophone, Francophone and Lusophone

128

to jointly oppose the English language is directly related to the safety of cultural diversity and the individual objectives of these movements to increase their status and influence. As a potential organization comparable to OIF (International Organisation of La Francophonie), Hispanophone has a chance to become a leader among similar lingua-political movements. In regard to the civilizational basis that has played an important role in the emergence of Hispanophone, it has to be mentioned that the Spanish language is the link between the societies that emerged from the archetype of Catholic Mediterranean Europe, which affected the multifaceted racial composition of the region. One of the products of European resettlement was the global introduction of Hispanic political culture. This explains the interest of the Hispanic world in Europe, the EU and Russia. The ideas of Panhispanism and Hispano-Americanism as the historic basis of Hispanophone, clearly demonstrate the historical and cultural interconnectedness between Spain and the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America. Each in its time, the movements were part of the Spanish official doctrine in regard to the expansion of the Spanish language, culture and the traditions. The concept of a unified Hispanic American sub-civilization based on language commonality is used by the member states in order to set up effective integration mechanisms of co-operation. One of these mechanisms is included in the set of components that support the development of Hispanophone and the Ibero-American Summits. In this context, language acts as a link between various countries and a tool for the integration of the Spanish-speaking world into one political and civilizational community. When analyzing Hispanophone, it is necessary to consider problems that occur on both internal and external levels. The internal problem of Hispanophone is the existence of cultural peculiarities in several Spanish provinces, the so-called “small motherlands” or “minor cultures”. The language problems in Spain are essential for the development of Hispanophonic processes in general. A cause for an internal split can be an ethno-linguistic split, e.g. Serbian and Albanian languages in Serbia, Serbian and Croatian languages in former Yugoslavia or Macedonian and Albanian languages in Macedonia. The ethno-linguistic division in Spain has had a negative effect on the political space of the Spanish language and its global influence. The international dimension of Hispanophone is directly related to the Spanish foreign policy trends. Spain has played an important role in its formation and development, i.e., Spanish foreign policy and Hispanophone share the same development course in regard to Latin America, the EU and the former colonies in Africa and Asia.

129

Hispanophone’s extensive development is indebted from the support of various governmental agencies and international organizations. Governmental agencies that are guided by the Spanish language policy as well as international organizations related to the Spanish language strengthen the role of Hispanophone as a global political factor. Since Hispanophone does not have the status of an official international organization, its infrastructure is rather difficult to define. Respectively, it is hard to make a clear prediction in regard to its future development. Despite the difficulties and negative trends associated with this linguapolitical movement, the author is able to frame several fact-based ideas regarding the future of Hispanophone. According to various lingua-political theories, Latin American Spanish and Portuguese are likely to blend and form an entirely new “Latin Americanized” language standard, which will inherit some basic features of Spanish and contain elements of Portuguese. This scenario alone will lead to the formation of one hybrid lingua-political space, which will be a fusion of Lusophone and Hispanophone, i.e., Portuguese- and Spanishspeaking worlds. Numerous Spanish-speaking countries are likely to take on the leadership role in the integration process within this community. Hispanophone’s primary objective is the propagation of the Spanish language as the most significant factor of global political relations. Hispanophone, as a major factor of global politics, forms a complex system of lingua-political relations that we can identify in the present-day world.

130

Bibliography Documents Deklaratsiya i programma deystviy v oblasti kul’tury mira, 13.09.1999//Deystvuyushchee mezhdunarodnoe pravo. Dokumenty v 2-kh tomakh. T.2/Sostaviteli Yu.M. Kolosov, E.S. Krivchikova. – M.: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2002. – pp. 496-504. Deklaratsiya Tysyacheletiya Organizatsii Ob“edinennykh Natsiy, 8.09.2000// Deystvuyushchee mezhdunarodnoe pravo. Dokumenty v 2-kh tomakh. T.2/Sostaviteli Yu.M. Kolosov, E.S. Krivchikova. – M.: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2002. – pp. 504-511. Konventsiya o zashchite prav cheloveka i osnovnykh svobod, 4.11.1950., i Protokoly № 1, 4, 6 i 7//Deystvuyushchee mezhdunarodnoe pravo. Dokumenty v 2-kh tomakh. T.2/ Sostaviteli Yu.M. Kolosov, E.S. Krivchikova. – M.: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2002. – pp. 267-291. Konventsiya ob okhrane vsemirnogo kul’turnogo i prirodnogo naslediya, 16.11.1972// Deystvuyushchee mezhdunarodnoe pravo. Dokumenty v 2-kh tomakh. T.2/Sostaviteli Yu.M. Kolosov, E.S. Krivchikova. – M.: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2002. – pp. 484-496. Konstitutsiya Ispanii ot 27 dekabrya 1978 goda. – http://constitutions.ru /article/258 Mezhdunarodnyy pakt o grazhdanskikh i politicheskikh pravakh, 16.12.1966// Deystvuyushchee mezhdunarodnoe pravo. Dokumenty v 2-kh tomakh. T.2/Sostaviteli Yu.M. Kolosov, E.S. Krivchikova. – M.: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2002. – pp. 232-249. Mezhdunarodnyy pakt ob ekonomicheskikh, sotsial’nykh i kul’turnykh pravakh, 16.12.1966//Deystvuyushchee mezhdunarodnoe pravo. Dokumenty v 2-kh tomakh. T.2/ Sostaviteli Yu.M. Kolosov, E.S. Krivchikova. – M.: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2002. – pp. 223-232. Obzor vneshney politiki Rossiyskoy Federatsii - http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/sps /3647DA9 7748A 106BC3 2572A B002A C4DD Respublika Kareliya. Zakon o gosudarstvennoy podderzhke karel’skogo i finskogo yazykov v respublike Kareliya. g. Petrozavodsk, 19.03.2004, № 759-3 RK Ustav Organizatsii Ob”edinennykh Natsiy po voprosam obrazovaniya, nauki i kul’tury, 16.11.1945//Deystvuyushchee mezhdunarodnoe pravo. Dokumenty v 2-kh tomakh. T.1/ Sostaviteli Yu.M. Kolosov, E.S. Krivchikova. – M.: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2002. – pp. 253-262. Annual Report Of The Secretary General to the General Assembly - http://scm.oas.org/ doc_public /ENGLISH/HIST_ 08/AG0403E04DOC.

131

Boletín de información del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores y de Cooperación.19de Diciembre2008.Nº1 http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/Actualidad/Paginas/ BoletinInfomiradasalexterior.aspx Boletín de información del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores y de Cooperación.  20de  Febrero2009.Nº  4 - http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/Actualidad/ Paginas/BoletinInfomiradasalexterior.aspx Convenio Multilateral Sobre Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española/ BOE:30/12/1963,nº312 - http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/Actualidad/Documentacion/ Tratados%20Internacionales/Paginas/tratado1.aspx Instituto Cervantes. Actas del Congreso de la Lengua Española. Sevilla, 1992. Memorandos de entendimiento de las Comunidades Autónomas con Instituciones extranjeras: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 y 2006. (NIPO:08). Pdf-http://www.maec.es/ES/ MENUPPAL/NORMATIVA/ACUERDOSNONORMATIVOS/Paginas/Acuerdos%20 no%20normativos.aspx Real Decreto 595/2007, de 4 de mayo, por el que se crea la Comisión Nacional para la Conmemoración de los Bicentenarios de la Independencia de las Repúblicas Iberoamericanas. (BOE, 11 de mayo 2007) modificado por el Real Decreto 1258/2007,de 21 de septiembre, (BOE, 25 de septiembre2007).pdf. http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/ Normativa/Derecho%20Interno/Paginas/Normativa%20Cooperacin%20Internacional.aspx. Real Decreto 173/2004, de 30 de enero, sobre la Comisión Nacional Española de Cooperación con la UNESCO (BOE nº 33, de 7 /2/2004)/ /http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/ Normativa/Derecho%20Interno/Paginas/Normativa%20Cooperacin%20Internacional.aspx. Real Decreto 993/1999, de 11 de junio, por el que se aprueba el Reglamento del Registro de Organizaciones no Gubernamentales de Desarrollo adscrito a la Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional (BOEnº152,de26/6/1999) /http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/ Normativa/Derecho%20Interno/Paginas/Normativa%20Cooperacin%20Internacional.aspx.

Literature Alpatov V.M. 150 yazykov i politika: 1917-1997. M. Kraft, Institut vostokovedeniya RAN, 1997. Alpatov V.M. Istoriya lingvisticheskikh ucheniy. – M., 1999. Alpatov V.M. Chto takoe yazykovaya politika?/ Obshchestvo i yazyk/«Mir russkogo slova», № 2, 2003. Atlas yazykov mira. Proiskhozhdenie i razvitie yazykov vo vsem mire. – M.: Lik press, 1998. Baranov O.N., V.A. Golitsyn, V.V. Tereshchenko. Global‘noe upravlenie. – M.: Izd-vo «MGIMO-Universiteta», 2006. Barygin I.N., A.I. Denisov. Osnovy regionovedeniya. – SPb, 2004. – pp. 10-14. Bzhezinskiy Z. Velikaya shakhmatnaya doska. Gospodstvo Ameriki i ego geostrategicheskie imperativy. – M.: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 1999.

132

Bzhezinskiy Z. Vybor. Mirovoe Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2004.

gospodstvo

ili

global’noe

liderstvo.-

M.:

Bzhezinskiy Z. Eshche odin shans. Tri prezidenta i krizis amerikanskoy sverkhderzhavy. - M.: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2007. Bledso U. Globalizatsiya i tsivilizatsii// Dilemmy globalizatsii. Sotsiumy i tsivilizatsii: illyuzii i riski/Otv.red. T.T. Timofeev. – M.: Variant, 2001. – pp. 330-351. Bogaturov A.D. Plyuralisticheskaya odnopolyarnost’ i interesy Rossiyskoy Federatsii// Sovremennaya mysl’, 1996. № 2. Bogaturov A.D., N.A. Kosolapov, M.A. Khrustalev. Ocherki teorii i politicheskogo analiza mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy. – M., 2002. Bobrovnikov A.V. istoki i perspektivy integratsii. // Latinskaya Amerika. 1999. №4. Borko Yu.A. Butorina O.V. Zhurkina V.V. Shemyatenkova V.G. Evropeyskiy Soyuz: fakty i kommentarii. - http://aes.org.ru/rus/fact8.htm Blinova N.V. Yazyk kak instrument vneshney politiki gosudarstva (na primere ispanskogo yazyka)//Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta. Seriya 6. mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, Vypusk 2 (ch. I) 06.2007. Vasil’ev A.M. Assimetrichnost’ mirovogo razvitiya i regional’nye problemy//Dilemmy globalizatsii. Sotsiumy i tsivilizatsii: illyuzii i riski/ Otv.red. T.T. Timofeev. – M.: Variant, 2001. Vallerstayn I. Dilemmy XXI veka i osobennosti perekhodnoy epokhi//Dilemmy globalizatsii. Sotsiumy i tsivilizatsii: illyuzii i riski/ Otv.red. T.T. Timofeev. – M.: Variant, 2001. Vakhtin N.B, Golovko E.V. Sotsiolingvistika i sotsiologiya yazyka: Uchebnoe posobie. – SPb.: ITs «Gumanitarnaya Akademiya»; Izd-vo Evropeyskogo universiteta v SanktPeterburge, 2004. Vinogradov B. A. Vstupitel’noe slovo. Politika otkrytogo i distantsionnogo obucheniya v Evropeyskom Soyuze i Rossiyskoy Federatsii: uroki, perspektivy i sotrudnichestvo. Sb. dokladov / Pod obshchey red. N.A. Shkolyara, Yu. Vaysa, K. Dondi. - M.: Izd-vo RUDN, 2000. Vodak R. Yazyk. Diskurs. Politika. – Volgograd: Peremena, 1997. Gal’perin P. Ya. Yazykovoe soznanie i nekotorye voprosy vzaimootnosheniya yazyka i myshleniya// Voprosy filosofii. – 1977. № 4. Gak V. G. Yazykovye preobrazovaniya. – M., 1998. M.N. Guboglo Mobilizatsionnyy lingvizm. – M.; 1993. Gratius Z. ES – MERKOSUR: obshchaya povestka dnya i perspektivy rasshireniya. // Latinskaya Amerika. 1999. №7-8. Gronskaya N.E. Virtual’noe prostranstvo yazykovoy lingvisticheskogo sushchestvovaniya// Polis 2004, № 5.

politiki:

konfliktnost’

Davydov V.M. Bespretsedentnyy sdvig v politicheskom landshafte regiona// Latinskaya Amerika. 2007. №7.

133

Davydov V.M. Tsivilizatsionnye kachestva regiona// Latinskaya Amerika. 2007. №4. Desheriev Yu.D. Yazykovaya politika.// Lingvisticheskiy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar‘. – M., 1990. Drobot G.A. Rol‘ mezhdunarodnykh organizatsiy v mirovoy politike: osnovnye teoreticheskie podkhody. //Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. №1, 1999.Seriya 18 «Sotsiologiya i politologiya». D’yakonov O.I. SShA - Tsentral’naya Amerika: plyusy i minusy ZST// Latinskaya Amerika. 2008. № 7. Ermol’eva E.G. Latinoamerikanskie vneshnie kul’turnye svyazi: institutsional’nyy aspekt//Latinskaya Amerika i mirovaya kul’tura. M.: Institut Latinskoy Ameriki RAN, 1995. Ivanov I.S. Novaya rossiyskaya diplomatiya. Desyat’ let vneshney politiki strany. M., 2002. Ivanov N.P. Tsivilizatsionnyy krizis v kontekste globalizatsii// Dilemmy globalizatsii. Sotsiumy i tsivilizatsii: illyuzii i riski/ Otv.red. T.T. Timofeev. – M.: Variant, 2001. Ivanov S.M. O «bol’shoy idee» rossiyskoy diplomatii// Aktual’nye problemy mirovoy politiki v XXI veke/ Otv.red. V.S. Yag’ya. – SPb.: Izd-vo «Nestor-istoriya», 2007. Ilishev I.G. Yazyk i politika v mnogonatsional’nom gosudarstve. Ufa, 2000. Istman S.M. Natsional’nye yazyki. Kratkaya entsiklopediya lingvistiki v sfere obrazovaniya. Pergamon, 1999. Kalent’eva T.L. Etnopsikholingvisticheskie issledovaniya yazykovogo soznaniya i obraza mira/Yazykovoe soznanie i obraz mira. Vestnik IGLU/ Otv. red T. L. Kalent’eva. – Irkutsk: IGLU, 2004. № 8. Kassi A.V. Kukushkin P.V. Aktual’nye voprosy otnosheniy Frantsii i Ispanii s vedushchimi stranami Magriba v kontse 80-kh nachale 90-kh godov. Institut Afriki. RAN. M. 1995. Karmadonov O.A. Sotsiologiya simvola. – M.: Academia, 2004. Karmen A. R. Na dalekoy Amazonke// Latinskaya Amerika. 2008. № 7. Katarlitskiy B.Yu. Globalizatsiya i novye sotsial’nye dvizheniya// Dilemmy globalizatsii. Sotsiumy i tsivilizatsii: illyuzii i riski/ Otv.red. T.T. Timofeev. – M.: Variant, 2001. Kenig M. Kul’turnoe raznoobrazie i yazykovaya politika// Reshenie natsional’noyazykovykh voprosov v sovremennom mire/ Pod red. Akad. E.P. Chelysheva. – M. – SPb: Zlatoust, 2003. Kiselev A.A. As’ento i anglo-ispanskie otnosheniya v pervoy polovine XVII veka// Latinskaya Amerika. 2008. №8. Klechenov G.E. Perspektivy latinskoy Ameriki v mnogopolyarnom mire.// Latinskaya Amerika. 2000. №9. Koval’ T.B. «Ispaniya posle vyborov: preemstvennost’ i peremeny». Kruglyy stol v ILA RAN// Latinskaya Amerika. 2008. №8. Koval’ T.B. «Kakim arshinom merit’?» Ispanskiy vzglyad na Rossiyu skvoz’ prizmu tsennostnykh predstavleniy// Latinskaya Amerika. 2006. № 12.

134

Kol’ev A.N. Natsiya i gosudarstvo. Teoriya konservativnoy rekonstruktsii. – M., 2005. Kornilov O.A. Yazykovye kartiny mira kak proizvodnye natsional’nykh mentalitetov. 2-e izdanie, ispr. i dop. – M.: CheRo, 2003. Korolev K. Universal’nyy yazyk i universal’naya pis’mennost’: v pogone za mechtoy// Yazyki kak obraz mira. – M.: OOO «Izdatel’stvo AST», SPb.: Terra Fantastica, 2003. Kotel’nikov V.S. Opredelenie natsional’nykh interesov: Versiya gosudarstvennogo stroitel’stva v Ukraine v kontekste mirovogo opyta// Polis («Politicheskie issledovaniya») № 6, 2000. Kristal, Devid. Angliyskiy yazyk kak global’nyy. M., 2001. Kulagin V.M Mir v XXI veke: mnogopolyarnyy balans sil ili global’nyy Pax Democratica?//Polis, 2000. № 1. Lagutina M.L. Politicheskie usloviya stanovleniya novoy sistemy mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy. Avtoref. diss. na soiskanie uch.st. kand. polit. nauk. – SPb, 2006. Latinoamerikanskaya diaspora v SShA/ Otv.red. B.I. Koval’; Institut Latinskoy Ameriki. – M.: Nauka, 2003. Lebedeva M.M. Politicheskaya sistema mira: proyavleniya «vnesistemnosti», ili novye aktory – starye pravila// «Privatizatsiya» mirovoy politiki: lokal’nye deystviya, global’nye rezul’taty./ Otv. red. M.M. Lebedeva. – M.: Tipografiya «Novosti», 2008. Lebedeva M.M. Mirovaya politika. Uchebnik dlya vuzov – M.: «Aspekt-Press». 2-oe izdanie, 2007. Leont’ev A. A. Osnovy psikholingvistiki.- M.: Smysl,1997. Leontovich O.A. Paradoksy mezhkul’turnogo obshcheniya// Yazykovaya lichnost’: aspekty lingvistiki i lingvodidaktiki. – Volgograd, 1999. Lepretre M. Yazykovoe planirovanie i ispol’zovanie yazyka v Katalonii/Deyatel’nost’ mezhdunarodnykh organizatsiy i evropeyskiy opyt v oblasti sokhraneniya yazykov etnicheskikh men’shinstv: Materialy mezhdunarodnogo seminara. Elista: APP «Dzhangar», 2000. Lingvisticheskie issledovaniya v kontse XX veka: Sb. obzorov/ Issled. Otdel Yazykoznaniya/ Otv. red. F. M. Berezin.- M., 2000. Marchuk N.I. Ob”ekt i predmet teorii mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy// Metodologiya i teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy: Materialy «Kruglogo stola». – M.: Izd-vo RAGS, 2004. Mazhlof, Anna-Maria. Prioritety YuNESKO v oblasti sokhraneniya mirovogo yazykovogo naslediya //Yazyki narodov Rossii: perspektivy razvitiya: Materialy mezhdunarodnogo seminara. – Elista: APP «Dzhangar», 2000. Mel’vil’ A.Yu. Stanovlenie transnatsional’noy politicheskoy sredy i volny «demokratizatsii»// Sovremennye mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya i mirovaya politika: Uchebnik./ Otv. red. A.V. Torkunov – M.: «Prosveshchenie», 2004. Metodologiya i teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy: Materialy «Kruglogo stola». – M.: Izd-vo RAGS, 2004.

135

Mechkovskaya N.B. Obshchee yazykoznanie. Strukturnaya i sotsial’naya tipologiya yazykov. M., 2001. Mikhal’chenko V.Yu. Zakony o yazykakh i yazykovye konflikty/ Yazyki narodov Rossii: perspektivy razvitiya: Materialy mezhdunarodnogo seminara. – Elista: APP «Dzhangar», 2000. Mikheeva N.F. Ispanskiy yazyk na territorii yugo-zapadnykh shtatov Ameriki: Monografiya. – M.: Izd-vo RUDN, 2002. Molodkin A.M. Vzaimodeystvie yazykov raznogo tipa v etnokul’turnom kontekste (yazykovye kontakty v portugaloyazychnoy Afrike). Pod red. akad. MAN VSh L. I. Barannikovoy. – Saratov: Izd-vo Sarat. Un-ta, 2001. Musorin A.Yu. Osnovy nauki o yazyke – Novosibirsk: Novosibirskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo, 2004. Mukharyamov N.M., Mukharyamova L.M. Politicheskaya lingvistika kak nauchnaya distsiplina// Politicheskie nauki. 2002. № 3. Narumov B.P. Ispanskiy yazyk/ Yazyki mira: romanskie yazyki. M.: Academia, 2001. Nevroznak V.P. Zakony o yazykakh narodov Rossiyskoy Federatsii i programmirovanie yazykovogo razvitiya/ Yazyki narodov Rossii: perspektivy razvitiya: Materialy mezhdunarodnogo seminara. Elista: APP «Dzhangar», 2000. Neshchimenko G.P. Yazyk i kul’tura v istorii etnosa// Yazyk-kul’tura-etnos. M.: Nauka, 1994. Nutenko L.Ya. Okhrana intellektual’noy sobstvennosti: problemy i konflikty// Latinskaya Amerika. 2007. № 7. Osnovy regionovedeniya/ Uchebnik pod obshchey redaktsiey I.N. Barygina. – M.: Gardariki, 2007. – pp. 18-36. Pavlova E.B. Portugaliya i integratsionnye protsessy v sovremennom mire: politicheskie aspekty. Sankt-Peterburg: BAN, 2001. Pavlova E.B. Portugaliya i Ispaniya v ibero-amerikanskom integratsionnom proekte.// Portugaliya i integratsionnye protsessy v sovremennom mire: politicheskie aspekty. SPb.: SPbGU. 2001. Pliskevich N.M. Ekonomika-yazyk-kul’tura. K itogam diskussii // Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost’. 2001. № 6. Puch, Pao Chetyre izmereniya Katalonskoy modeli/Deyatel’nost’ mezhdunarodnykh organizatsiy i evropeyskiy opyt v oblasti sokhraneniya yazykov etnicheskikh men’shinstv: Materialy mezhdunarodnogo seminara. Elista: APP «Dzhangar», 2000. Primakov E.M.. Mir posle 11-go sentyabrya. – M.: Mysl’, 2002. Prokhorenko I.L. Natsional’nyy interes vo vneshney politike gosudarstva: opyt sovremennoy Ispanii. Pasport Grafika. - M. 1995. Reshenie natsional’no-yazykovykh voprosov v sovremennom mire/ Pod red. Akad. E.P. Chelysheva. – M. – SPb: Zlatoust, 2003. Sepir E. Izbrannye trudy po yazykoznaniyu i kul’turologi. – M., 1993.

136

Sinel’shchikova I.G. Ispaniya – Latinskaya Amerika: novye tendentsii vo vneshneekonomicheskikh svyazyakh.// Latinskaya Amerika. 2001. №12. Sitrin D. Yazyk, politika i amerikanskaya natsional’naya obshchnost’// Dialog – SShA. 1991. № 47. Slanevskaya N.M. Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy. SPb.: Nestor, 2005. Slin’ko A.A. Pravaya i levaya al’ternativy. K probleme «neevklidnoy politiki» // Latinskaya Amerika. 2008. №7. Sotsiolingvisticheskie problemy razvivayushchikhsya stran/ Otv. red. Yu.D. Desheriev. – M.: Izd-vo «Nauka», 1975. Stepanov M.S. Poiski putey sblizheniya. // Latinskaya Amerika. 1999. №12. Strany mira: kratkiy polit.-ekon. Spravochnik./ Pod obshchey red. I.S. Ivanova. M. Respublika, 1997. Subichus B.Yu. Novyy svet i kul’tura Novogo vremeni// Latinskaya Amerika i mirovaya kul’tura. M.: Institut Latinskoy Ameriki RAN, 1995. Tatarovskaya I.M. Universal’nyy yazyk: pro i contra (Lingvopoliticheskie aspekty globalizatsii): M.: Sovremennaya ekonomika i pravo, 2003. Timofeev T.T. Paradigmy globalizatsii// Dilemmy globalizatsii. Sotsiumy i tsivilizatsii: illyuzii i riski/ Otv.red. T.T. Timofeev. – M.: Variant, 2001. Tikhonova N.E. Ekonomika-yazyk-kul’tura (diskussiya) // Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost’. 2001. № 3. Tishkov V.A. Rekviem po etnosu. Issledovaniya po sotsial’no-kul’turnoy antropologii. – M.: Nauka, 2003. – pp. 64-89. Troshina N.N. Lingvisticheskiy aspekt mezhkul’turnoy kommunikatsii/ Lingvisticheskie issledovaniya v kontse XX veka. Sb. obzorov/ Issledovatel’skiy otdel yazykoznaniya/ Otv. Red. Berezin F. M. – M., 2000. Uolf, Bendzhamen L. Nauka i yazykoznanie (O dvukh oshibochnykh vozzreniyakh na rech’ i myshlenie, kharakterizuyushchikh sistemu estestvennoy logiki, i o tom, kak slova i obychai vliyayut na myshlenie)//Zarubezhnaya lingvistika.T.1 .Izbrannoe.- M., 1999. Universal’nyy atlas mira. – M. «Izdatel’stvo AST», 2006. Uorf, B. Otnoshenie norm povedeniya i myshleniya k yazyku. Nauka i yazykoznanie. Lingvistika i logika// Novoe v lingvistiki. – M., 1960. A.I. Utkin. Mirovoy poryadok XXI veka. – M.: Algoritm, 2001. Khantington S. Kto my?: Vyzovy amerikanskoy natsional’noy identichnosti/ S.Khantington; per.s angl. A. Bashkirova. – M.: OOO «Izdatel’stvo AST»: OOO «Tranzitkniga», 2004. Khantington S. Stolknovenie tsivilizatsiy// Polis. 1994. № 1. Khantington. S. Stolknovenie tsivilizatsiy/per. s angliyskogo, M.: Izd-vo AST, 2003. Khayt V.L. Istorichnost’ i mera samobytnosti kul’tury Latinskoy Ameriki// Latinskaya Amerika i mirovaya kul’tura. M.: Institut Latinskoy Ameriki RAN, 1995. – p. 200.

137

Chelyshev E.P. Russkiy yazyk obretaet gosudarstvennuyu podderzhku//Vestnik RAN. 1997. N7. Chelysheva I. I. Yazyki Ispanii// Yazyki mira. Romanskie yazyki. M., 2001. Chervontsev A. Angliyskiy yazyk v sovremennom mire/Reshenie natsional’noyazykovykh voprosov v sovremennom mire/ Pod red. akad. E.P. Chelysheva. – M. – SPb: Zlatoust, 2003. Chernov I.V. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya Frankofonii: Lingvisticheskoe izmerenie mirovoy politiki. – SPb.: Izd-vo S. – Peterburgskogo un-ta, 2006. Chernov P.V. Rossiya. Etnogeopoliticheskie osnovy gosudarstvennosti. M. Nauka, 1999. Chudinov A.P. Natsional’naya mental’nost’ i metaforicheskoe modelirovanie politicheskoy situatsii// Kontseptual’noe prostranstvo yazyka: Sb. nauch. trudov/ Otv. red. Prof. E. S. Kubryakova. – Tambov, Izd-vo GGU im. G. R. Derzhavina, 2005. «Chto delat’?» s edinstvom mnogoobraziya// Latinskaya Amerika.2007. № 4. Shemyakin Ya.G. Evropa i Latinskaya Amerika: Vzaimodeystvie tsivilizatsiy v kontekste vsemirnoy istorii. M.: Nauka, 2001. Shemyakin Ya.G. Iberoamerikanskaya politicheskaya kul’tura i tsennosti modernizatsii: perspektivy demokratii v Latinskoy Amerike/Globalizatsiya razvitiya, Novye orientiry Rossii i Latinskaya Amerika. M, 1996. Shemyakin Ya.G. «Pogranichnye» tsivilizatsii planetarnogo masshtaba// Latinskaya Amerika. 2007. №7. Sheremet’ev I.K. Kholodkov N.N. Inostrannye banki v regione. Masshtaby i posledstviya ekspansii. // Latinskaya Amerika. 2001. №8. Shkolyar N.A. Ispaniya v mirovoy ekonomike i vneshnikh svyazyakh Rossii// Latinskaya Amerika. 2008. №8. Emar M. Tsivilizatsii v istoricheskom kontekste: Dilemmy globalizatsii. Sotsiumy i tsivilizatsii. M.: Variant, 2002. Yag’ya V.S. Politicheskaya karta v kontekste mirovoy politiki v XXI veke//Obrazy geoprostranstva: sb.st./ red.kol.: S.B.Lavrov, Yu.N. Gladkiy, D.V. Sukhorukov, I.A. Zair-Bek, SPb.: izd-vo SPbGTU, 2000. Yag’ya V.S. Administrativno-territorial’noe delenie i etnicheskie protsessy v osvobodivshikhsya stranakh Afriki (Postanovka problemy)//Rasy i narody. Ezhegodnik/ Otv.red. I.R. Gurlevich. – M.: Nauka, 1975. Vyp.5. Yag’ya B.C. Yazyk kak faktor vo vneshney politike gosudarstva // Rossiya v global’nom mire. Sotsial’no-teoreticheskiy al’manakh. №4. SPb, 2003. Yag’ya V.S. Angliyskiy yazyk kak faktor mirovoy politiki)//Vestnik SanktPeterburgskogo Universiteta. Seriya 6. mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, Vypusk 4 (ch.1) 12.2007. Yazyk i etnicheskiy konflikt. M.: Gendal’f, 2001. Yazyki kak obraz mira. – M.: OOO «Izdatel’stvo AST», SPb.: Terra Fantastica, 2003. Yazyk kak sredstvo translyatsii kul’tury. – M.: Nauka, 2000.

138

Yakovets V.Yu. O mnogomernoy geotsivilizatsionnoy modeli// Globalizatsiya i vzaimodeystvie tsivilizatsiy: M.: «Ekonomika», 2003. Yanush O.B. Yazykovye aspekty integratsii stran Merkosur// Latinskaya Amerika. 2006. №10. Yanush O.B. Yazykovoy faktor mezhgosudarstvennoy integratsii: Avtoref. dis. … kand. polit. nauk. Kazan’. 2006. Abbi, Anvita, Cupta, R. S. And Aggarwal, K. S. Language and the State. New Delhi: Creative Books, 1995. An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method/ edited by Thomas Ricento: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, 2006. Arredondo, Santiago Castillo: Elementos Facilitadotes de la Ensenanza a Distancia. La Intercomunicacion entre los protagonistas de la Enseñanza a Distancia. Revista Iberoamericana de Educacion a Distancia, UNED, Madrid, № 2, 1990. Barbour S. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg: The Total Coincidence of Nations and Speech Communities? / Language and Nationalism in Europe Ed. S. Barbour and C. Carmichael. Oxford University Press, 2002. Bell D. The End of Ideology. Harvard, 1988. Blat, J. Primer Congreso National sobre Nuevas Tecnologias Aplicadas a la Formation. Madrid, 2004. Blecua J.M. El Español, lengua extranjera// Perspectivas Exteriores 2004. Los Intereses de España en el Mundo: PEBN, Madrid, 2004. Blommaert J. The Debate is open // Language Ideological Debates. Berlin; N.Y., 1999. Bourhis, R. Marshall D. The United States and Canada/ Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity. Ed. J. A. Fishman. Oxford University Press, 2001. Brass, Paul R. Language, Religion and Politics. London: Oxford University Press, 1990. Beugrande R. de The story of Discourse Analysis//Discourse as Structure and Process. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. – London: Thousand Oaks, 1997. Calvet L.-J. Language Wars and Linguistic Politics.- Oxford, 1998. Chomsky N. Language and Responsibility. Brighton. Harvester Press, 1979. Crystal D. English as a Global Language. Cambridge University Press, 1997. Dominguez F. Toward a language-marketing model// International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 1998. Vol.134. Editorial//Label France, January 1998. – p. 1. Enciclopedia del Español en el Mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2007-2008: Instituto Cervantes, Madrid, 2008. Enciclopedia del Español en el Mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2006-2007: Instituto Cervantes, Madrid, 2007. Español en el Mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2005: Instituto Cervantes, Madrid, 2005.

139

Fill A. Contrastive Ecolinguistics – a New Field for Ploughshares?// Anglistentag 1994 Graz. Proceedings. – Volume XVI. – Tübingen, 1995. Fill A. Language and Ecology: Ecolinguistic Perspectives for 2000 and Beyond. – Tokyo, 2000. Fishman J. The New Linguistic Order // Foreign Policy.–Winter.–1998-1999. Graham E. Fuller “Neonationalism and Global Politics: An Era of Separatism”//Current 344 (July-August 1992). Juan José Solozabal Echevarria, «El régimen constitucional del bilingüísmo. La Cooficialidad lingüística como garantia institucional», Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional, 55, 1998, pp. 28-31. Garcia Aretio, Lorenzo. Investigar para mejorar la calidad de la universidad. Trabajo de investigacion sobre la UNED, Universidad Nacional Educacion a Distancia, Madrid, 1997. García Ferrando M., López-Aranguren E., Beltrán M. La conciencia nacional y regional en la España de las autonomías // CIS. — Madrid, 1994. García L.A. La lengua Español y sus tres formas de estar en el mundo// Enciclopedia del Español en el Mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2006-2007: Instituto Cervantes, Madrid 2007. Gilbert P. Peoples, Cultures and Nations in Political Philosophy. Edinbourgh. University Press. 2000. Giovanni Poggeschi. Linguistic Rights in Spain // Minority Rights in Europe. European Minorities and Languages. Hague, 2001. Haarmann H. History/ Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity. Ed. J. A. Fishman. Oxford University Press, 1999. Harmon A. The Internet Has Spawned a Language of its Own// English, March 1999, № 11. Howell R.B. The Low Countries: A study in Sharply Contrasting Nationalism./ Language and Nationalism in Europe. Eds S. Barbour and C. Carmichael. Oxford University Press, 2002. M. Janowitz. The Reconstruction of Patriotism: Education for Civic Consciousness: University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1983. Judge A. France. “One State, One Nation, One Language?”/ Language and Nationalism in Europe. Eds S. Barbour and C. Carmichael. Oxford University Press, 2002. Khudoley K. Saint Petersburg State University – School of International Relations// International Affairs Education at the Dawn of the 21st century / Ed. by Marcus Grundah. Association of Professional Schools of International Affairs New York, NY. 2002. pp. 43–46. Lakoff G. Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify War in the Gulf// D. Yallet (ed.) Engulfed in War: Just war and the Persian Gulf. Honolulu, 1991. Language and Nationalism in Europe Eds S. Barbour and C. Carmichael. Oxford University Press, 2000. Language, Education and Society in a Changing World. An international conference organized by the Irish Association fir Applied Linguistics (IRAAL). Programme and book of abstracts. Dublin, 23-25 June 1994.

140

Language Marketing // Baker C., Jones S.P. Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon, Philadelphia, Toronto, Johannesburg, 1998. Liebking K. Social Psychology/ Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity. Ed. J. A. Fishman. Oxford University Press, 1999. Mar-Molinero C. The Iberian Peninsula: Conflicting Linguistic Nationalism./ Language and Nationalism in Europe. Eds S. Barbour and C. Carmichael. Oxford University Press, 2002. Mar-Molinero C. The Politics of Language in the Spanish-Speaking World from Colonization to Globalization. – London and New York: Routledge, 2000. Martínes Blanco, M. T. Identidad Cultural de Hispanoamérica. Europeismo y Originalidad Americana, Madrid, Universidad Complutense, 1998. Moral F. Identidad regional y nacionalismo en el Estado de las Autonomías // CIS. Madrid, 1998. Morales H.L. El Futuro del Español// Enciclopedia del Español en el Mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2006-2007: Instituto Cervantes, Madrid 2007. Morin Regina. Evidence in the Spanish language press of linguistic borrowings of computer and Internet-related terms// Spanish in Context, Volume 3, Number 2, 2006. Numberto Lópes Morales. La Aventura Del Español en América:Editorial Espasa Calpe, S. A., 2005. Ortega M. El papel de España en el mundo// Perspectivas Exteriores 2004. Los Intereses de España en el Mundo: PEBN, Madrid, 2004. Palabras y mundos. Informe sobre las lenguas del mundo: Icaria editorial, Barcelona, 2006. Palau G. El Problema de la Eficacia de la Acción Social Católica en las Grandes Cuidades. Buenos Aires, 1997. Pérez-Díaz V. Sueño y Razón de América Latina: Fundacion ICO. Madrid, 2005. Perspectivas Exteriores 2004. Los Intereses de España en el Mundo: PEBN, Madrid, 2004. Phillipson R. Language Policy and Linguistic Imperialism/ An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method/ edited by Thomas Ricento: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, 2006. Phillipson R. English-only Europe? Challenging language Policy. – London: Routledge, 2003. Phillipson R. Linguistic Imperialism. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Phillipson R. Global English and Local Language Policies: What Denmark Needs. – Language Problems and Language Planning, Vol. 25, №1, 2001. Pique J. Nuevas fronteras de la politica exterior de España. // Politica Exterior. Vol. XV. enero/febrero 2001. Num. 79. Powell Ch. España en democracia, 1975-2000. Plaza & Janes Editores. Barcelona. 2001. Rothkopf D. In Praise of Cultural Imperialism? //Foreign Policy, 107, 1997.

141

Sepúlveda Isidro. El Sueño de la Madre Patria. Hispanjamericanismo y Nacionalismo: Fundación Carolina. Centro de Estudios Hispanicos e Iberoamericanos, Marcial pons, Ediciones de Historia, S. A. Madrid, 2005. Schiffman, H. Linguistic Culture and Language Policy. London: Routlege, 1996. Schmid С.L. The Politics of Language. Conflict, Identity, and Cultural Pluralism. Comparative Perspective. Oxford University Press, 2001. Skinnner B. F. Beyond Freedom and Dignity. Cape, 1990. Smith A. D. National Identity. Penguin, 1991. Skutnabb-Kangas T. Language Policies and Education: the role of education in destroying or supporting the world’s linguistic diversity. Keynote Address at the World Congress on Language Policies, 16-20 April2002, organized by the Linguapax Institute in cooperation with the Government of Catalonia, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. J.E. Stiglitz. Globalization and its Discontents. - N.Y., 2002. Tabouret-Keller A. Western Europe/ Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity. Ed. J. A. Fishman Oxford University Press, 2001. Trudgill P. Greece and European Countries: From Religious to Linguistic Identity/ Language and Nationalism in Europe. Eds S. Barbour and C. Carmichael. Oxford University Press, 2002. Untoria Pedroso M.A. Consolidar y fortalecer el espacio Iberoamericano. – Madrid, 2002. Manuel Diez de Velasco Vallejo. Las Organizaciones Internacionales, Madrid: Editorial Tecnos. 12a edición, 2002. Van Aken, M., Pan-hispanism: Its Origin and Development to 1866, Berkeley, University of California Press, 2001. Waldman S. The Foundations of Political Action. Little, Brown and Co. 1972. Watson A. Jamestown: The Voyage of English. – L: ESU, 2007. Walzer M. Membership in Communitarianism and Individualism. Oxford, 1992. Withers, C.W.J. Towards a History of Geolinguistics in the Public Sphere, History of Science, 1999. Withers, C.W.J. History and Philosophy of Geography 2002-2003: Language and Geography in its Place, Progress in Human Geography, 2005.

Periodicals Grachev Global’nyy – ne znachit odnotsvetnyy//Novoe vremya, 2001. № 5. – pp. 26-27. N.E Esipova, S. Gradirovskiy. Russkiy yazyk na postsovetskom prostranstve// Nezavisimaya gazeta, 28.10.2008. O. Zav’yalova Kitayskoe lingvisticheskoe chudo//Nezavisimaya gazeta, 28.01.2009.

142

A. Ignatov Kubinskiy shans// Nezavisimaya gazeta-Dipkur’er. 2.02.2009. Krasnaya kniga// Vechernee vremya, 20-26.06.2008. Latyshskiy yazyk, yazyki v Latvii//Rossiyskaya gazeta, 15.11.2003. Medvedeva vstretili po-korolevski// Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti. 3.03.2009. V. Pokrovskiy. Tvoya moya ne ponimay!// Nezavisimaya gazeta, 14.11.2007. R.Kh. Poteplenie tsiframi//Politicheskiy zhurnal, 2004. №13(16). – p. 50. Yu. Savenkov «Singlish» rezhet slukh//Izvestiya, 5.01.1999. Khose Luis. Interv’yu s korolem Ispanii Khuanom Karlosom I //Nezavisimaya gazeta. 3.07.2003. Aznarez J.J./ Vicent M. La declaracion final de la Cumbre recogera el rechazo a cualquier extraterritorialidad. // El Pais. 15.11.2008. Aznarez J.J./ Larraya J.M. La globalizacion y las precarias economicas de la regijon. // El Pais. 16.10.1999. Barron I. El BBVA gana un 27?9% mas en 2000 con fuerte crecimiento de Latinoamérica. // El Pais. 25.01.2001. Barron I. El BBVA lanza dos OPA para controlar el 100% de sus filiales en Argentina y Colombia. // El Pais. 24.01.2001. Calderon A. Las inversiones españolas? una apuesta arriesgada?// La Vanguardia. Dossier. 2007. enero/marzo numero 4. Cembrero I. America Latina se pone de moda. // El Pais. 13.06.1994. Cembrero I./Aznarez J.J. Estrategia contra la droga.// El Pais. 18.10.1995. Cembrero I./Aznarez J.J. Gonzales valedor de Latinoamerica ante Europa. // El Pais. 17.10.1995. Cembrero I./Aznarez J.J. Llamamento de la Cumbre Iberoamericana a China y Francia para que cessen sus pruebas nucleares. // El Pais. 17.10.1995. Cembrero I. España presentara en la Cumbre de Cartagena una propuesta para fomenter el cambio multilateral. // El Pais. 14.06.1994. B. Donker Jungle van vertaalcombinaties// NRC Handelsblad, 26.11.1998. English is still on the March//The Economist, 24th of February 2001. – p. 50. Joking to Latin America// International Herald Tribune, November 2008. – pp. 29-30. Larraya J.M./ Aznarez J.J. España y Cuba intentan la normalizacion de sus relaciones en la Cumbre de isla Margarita. // El Pais. 08.11.1997. Larraya J.M./ Aznarez J.J. La Cumbre de Iberoamerica llama la atencion sobre la etica democratica. // El Pais. 07.11.1997. Larraya J.M./ Aznarez J.J. La declaracion de Viña del Mar defiende el modelo democratico y rechaza el autoritarismo. // El Pais. 12.11.1996. Larraya J.M./ Aznarez J.J. La reunion latinoamericana acaba con notables ausencias y deja un aroma de insatisfaccion. // El Pais. 10.11.1997.

143

Larraya J.M./ Aznarez J.J. Latinoamerica busca un modelo de democracia que attraiga a los inversores. // El Pais. 09.11.1996. Larraya J.M./ Aznarez J.J Matutes pone condiciones a La Habana. // El Pais. 08.11.1997. Larraya J.M./ Aznarez J.J Aznar: “Si Castro mueve pieza, España movera pieza” // El Pais. 12.11.1996. Larraya J.M./ Garcia J. Ayuda urgente para salir de la crisis. // El Pais. 17.10.1998. Larraya J.M./ Garcia J. La Cumbre Iberoamericana pedira la reforma del sistema financiero internacional. // El Pais. 17.10.1998. Peter van Ham The rise of the Brand State//Foreign Affairs, 2001, vol. 80, № 5. –pp. 2-6. Robert D. Kaplan ”History moving North”// New York Times, 17 February 2003. Ruiz Gimenez G. Hacia la integracion. // El Pais. Extra. Fin de siglo en America Latina. 14.06.1994. Sanahuja J.A. Contigo en la distancia. Los lazos con la Union Europea tras la Cumbre de Madrid.// La Vanguardia. Dossier. 2003. enero/marzo, num. 4.

Web Sources V Moskve rassmatrivayut itogi proshedshey v Gavane IX Iberoamerikanskoy vstrechi na vysshem urovne. http://www.rg.ru/oficial/from_min/mid_99/510.htm Ispaniya sokhranit pomoshch‘ Latinskoy Amerike na urovne $1,5 mlrd. v god. http:// www.pr.kg/articles/n0069/6914-int.html K 2015 godu polovina naseleniya Zemli budet govorit‘ po-angliyski. http://www. podrobnosti.ua/society/2004/12/09/164593.html Kabakchi V.M. Troyanskiy kon‘ posledney revolyutsii/ Yazyk global‘nogo rasprostraneniya i nebyvalogo vliyaniya. http://www.kulturagz.ru/Archive/Issues/ vipusk_2000_37/Rubrics/smena/a3.html Mukharyamova L.M. Yazyk i politika v kontekste globalizatsii// «Obshchestvo i politika». http://globkazan.narod.ru/2003/a17.html Mukharyamova L.M. Yazykovoy marketing: napravlenie strategii planirovaniya. http// www.rags.ru/akadem/gos_sl/26-2003/26-2003-64.html Chavesa zastavili zamolchat’. http://www.gzt.ru/world/2007/ 11/11/220026.html Yazyki narodov Rossii v Internete. http://www.peoples .org.ru /pred. html Asuntos Globales. http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/Asuntos/Paginas /Asuntos%20Globales.aspx Cumbre UE-América Latina & el Caribe: Conclusiones. Informe de evaluación. http:// www.europa.eu.int/comm/world/lac/conc_es/infev.htm Cumbre UE-América Latina & el Caribe: Conclusiones. Informe de evaluación. http:// www.europa.eu.int/comm/world/lac/conc_es/infev.htm

144

Politica Exterior de España en Iberoamerica. http://www.maec.es/ES/MENUPPAL/ PAISES/IBEROAMERICA/Paginas/iberoamerica.aspx Internet Users by Language. Top 10 Languages Used in Internet. http://www. internetworld.stats.com/stats.7.html Fettes, M. Linguistic Ecology. Towards an Integrative Linguistic Science. Retrieved from the World Wide Web June 9, 2000: http://www.esperantic.org/~mfettes/home.htm French Concerned Globalization Will Lead to English Language Domination, 2001. Australian Broadcasting Corporation TV Program Transcript, 23.04. http://www.abc.net. au/7.30/content/2001/s281829.htm Pozo A. La cooperacion para el desarollo de la Union Europea en America Latina. La accion Española ante un pasado umbrio y un futuro incierto. http://www.cidob.es/Castellano/ Publicaciones/Afers/54-55ayuso.htm

Websites: http://www.comercio.es http://www.europa.eu http://www.maec.es http://www.mid.ru http://www.scm.oas.org http://www.es-ue.org http://www.la-moncloa.es http://www.mercosur.int http://www.comunidadandina.org

145

Table of Contents Publisher’s note

3

Introduction

5

Chapter 1. Linguistic Dimension of Global Politics. Its Theoretical and Practical Aspects 1.1. The Multi-sidedness of Lingua-academic Approaches towards the Role of Language in Modern Society 1.2. International Hierarchy of Languages and the Future of Global Politics in Lingua-political Context 1.3. Linguistic Policies in the Age of Globalization. The Significance of Lingua-political Movements Chapter 2. Hispanophone. Historical and Civilizational Background. Basic Mechanisms 2.1. Formation of Hispanic Sub-civilization in Lingua-political Context 2.2. Panhispanism and Hispano-Americanism as the Origins of Modern Hispanophone 2.3. Components of Hispanophone in the Context of Spanish Foreign Policy

18 – 30 47 61 – 70 77

Chapter 3. Hispanophone as a Global Movement 3.1. Hispanophone as a Lingua-political Identity of the Modern World 3.2. The Cultural and Economic Dimension of Hispanophone 3.3. Hispanophone. Prospects and Challenges

89 – 106 116

Conclusion

127

Bibliography

131

Academic Publication Natalia Kovalevskaia

Linguistic Dimension of Global Politics: Hispanophone

Press date: 11.03.2013 Format: 148 x 210 mm – Offset paper – Sheetfed offset 10,000 copies Golden Mile GmbH Franklinstr. 14 · 10587 Berlin · Germany Tel.: +49 (0) 30 886 812 83 · Fax: +49 (0) 30 886 812 84 [email protected] www.goldenmile-verlag.de