// Studies in Language & Capitalism 1, 2006: 121 – 141.Despite its obvious political significance, political theory has not played a prominent role in the
debates around the spread of ‘global English’. Given the explosion of literature within political science
and political theory on so-called ‘globalization’ and its effect on the nation-state together with the
highly influential argument of Benedict Anderson on the historical role of language and print in the
modern ‘imagining’ of nationhood, one would have thought political theorists would have a lot to
contribute. However, even the recent growing literature on language and language rights within liberalpolitical theory add little to the issues raised by the advent of ‘global English’. This article aims at beginning to redress this situation by using several examples, especially the work of Philippe van
Parijs and Abram De Swaan, to show how separating the communicative aspect of language from
issues of culture, identity and power creates an abstract and rarified conception of language that
avoids any adequate approach to the politics of global English. By turning to the work of Antonio
Gramsci and his argument for how a truly common Italian national language should be formed, we
can find a more suitable framework and set of concepts including his well known, hegemony.
