According to the
Google Scholar website, de Swaan's book,
Words of the world: The global language system, has been cited by 2990 other papers, as of 25 August 2021. However, there have also been several concerns regarding the global language system:
Importance of Q-value Van Parijs (2004) examined the ways to categorise language users into various groups. They suggested two theories: one by Siegel (2006) who used 'sociolinguistic settings', which is based on the notion of dominant language, and another one by de Swaan (2001) that used the concept of hierarchy in the global language system. According to them, de Swaan's hierarchy is more appropriate, as it does not imply dominance in power terms. Rather, de Swaan's applies the concepts of geography and function to group languages and hence language users according to the global language system. De Swaan (2001) views the acquisition of
second languages (L2) as typically going up the hierarchy. However, Cook and Li argues that this analysis is not adequate in accounting for the many groups of L2 users to whom the two areas of territory and function hardly apply. The two areas of territory and function can be associated respectively with the prevalence and centrality of the
Q-value. This group of L2 users typically does not acquire an L2 going up the hierarchy, such as users in an intercultural marriage or users who come from a particular cultural or ethnic group and wish to learn its language for identity purposes. Thus, Cook and Li argue that de Swaan's theory, though highly relevant, still has its drawbacks in that the concept behind
Q-value is insufficient in accounting for some L2 users.
Choice of supercentral languages There is disagreement as to which languages should be considered more central. The theory states that a language is central if it connects speakers of "a series of central languages".
Robert Phillipson questioned why
Japanese is included as one of the supercentral languages but
Bengali, which has more speakers, is not on the list.
Inadequate evidence for a system Michael Morris argued that while it is clear that there is language hierarchy from the "ongoing interstate competition and power politics", there is little evidence provided that shows that the "global language interaction is so intense and systematic that it constitutes a global language system, and that the entire system is held together by one
global language, English". He claimed that de Swaan's case studies demonstrated that hierarchy in different regions of the world but did not show the existence of a system within a region or across regions. The global language system is supposed to be part of the international system but is "notoriously vague and lacking in operational importance" and therefore cannot be shown to exist. However, Morris believes that this lack of evidence could be from the lack of global language data and not negligence on de Swaan's part. Morris also believes that any theory on a global system, if later proved, would be much more complex than what is proposed by de Swaan. Questions on how the
hypercentral language English holds together the system must also be answered by such a global language system.
Theory built on inadequate foundations Robert Phillipson states that the theory is based on selective theoretical foundations. He claimed that there is a lack of consideration about the effects of
globalization, which is especially important when the theory is about a global system: "De Swaan nods occasionally in the direction of linguistic and cultural capital, but does not link this to class or linguistically defined social stratification (
linguicism) or linguistic inequality" and that "key concepts in the
sociology of language, language maintenance and
shift, and language spread are scarcely mentioned". and "politic and economic patterns", which may explain why he makes only "cautious references to socio-linguistic parameters". ==See also==