Globalization : Changing Language and Landscape in Hybrid Times

As the world has moved increasingly away from regulation towards integration – under the phenomena called globalization – the importance of language in general and of English language in particular has to be analysed in the changing circumstances. It is now widely acknowledged that under closer market networking, English language has had to reduce barriers of communication and produce new spheres of speech engagement and service exchanges. Even global English is now a decentralized language in that it makes the new constructs and meanings appealing and adaptable by non-Hegemonic groups. English as an eclectic language seems easy to learn and to earn. But the battle over language is not over.Reinvention in and through the language has brought local to the global and vice versa. The role of transnational organizations also has to be assessed contextually.There are studies to prove that language not only profoundly influences how people perceive the wor(l)d, but also their implicit preferences. Language, however, with its immense potential of criticism, often tends to confront and challenge the existing ideologies and institutions in order to influence decisions and directions for regrouping of people and their ideas. All meaning is dual; every interactive meeting is crucial. How can we ignore the anti-globalization movement?Therefore, while borderless economy is a reality, neo liberalization (new imperialism) has to accept the fact that English has to work more and more as a border language. This is so because while language can build and manage a communication space it has to allow and enable multiple forms of interaction in a diverse and dynamic socio-economic world. This paper seeks to debate the issue of language in the era of globalization. The paper emphasizes that a one-dimensional view of language is like looking at globalization as McDonaldization which is contrary to the power and patterns of language use. Given the trend of globalization of languages it explores the possibility, nay inevitability of “linguistic social responsibility” akin to corporate social responsibility