cultures. But at another level, it suggests that as the cultural forms of hip-hop become indigenised through other languages (though Trey is discussing English-language rap), they may have a better chance of encountering analogous forms within those cultures.
Given the extent to which language can be a difficulty for some in engaging with rap, it is
worth noting that hip-hop gets taken up in differing forms. In a number of contexts where
English is not the first language, break-dancing first gained people’s attention—in part because
of the cultural and linguistic difficulties in understanding rap, in part because of the more
immediate appeal of the physical. Thus, as Condry comments, ‘A striking feature of global
flows of popular culture, then, is that dance—movement of the body—moves easily across
linguistic and cultural boundaries, and that movies and videos are a primary channel for this
exchange’. (229) He goes on to conclude:
Language is a key variable for understanding Japanese hip-hop and for transnational exchanges more generally. When we consider cultural globalization, we need to examine what actually moves across the cultural divide, because that is how to get a sense of what kind of divide it is. (231)
Language, then, is a crucial factor in processes of transfer and localisation. But in what direction is the transfer?
The North American cultural forms of rap and hip-hop may be in the process of becoming
localised, but is there an influence in the opposite direction? As Pennay comments in his discussion of rap in Germany, ‘Regrettably, the flow of new ideas and stylistic innovations in
popular music is nearly always from the English-speaking market, and not to it’. (128) Similarly, Jacqueline Urla points out: ‘unequal relations between the United States record industry and Basque radical music mean that Public Enemy’s message reaches the Mugurza brothers
[of Negu Gorriak] in Irun, and not vice versa’. (189) David Hesmondalgh and Caspar Melville
suggest a more reciprocal relationship between black cultures in Britain, the Caribbean, and
the US, where they can be seen as ‘linked in a complex network of cultural flows’.[1] But to
what extent is this an issue of language and to what extent an issue of market size? Certainly,
French rappers such as MC Solar have influenced music in North America.
In a number of ways, the study of the global spread of English provides a useful parallel
to these studies of ‘global noise’. The issue of ownership—who owns English—has been
widely debated, and consensus seems to be moving towards those who use the language
rather than those who facilitate its spread. Hardline accusations of linguistic imperialism
have been countered by studies of periphery resistance to the spread of English and by
descriptions of new indigenised versions of English, such as Indian, Singaporean and Nigerian English.[2] Most recently, Janina Brutt-Griffler has argued convincingly that:
- ↑ Mitchell, p. 87. See also Paul Gilroy, The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness, Verso, London, 1993.
- ↑ The classic expression of the linguistic imperialist position is Robert Phillipson, Linguistic Imperialism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992. The most cogent response to this book is Suresh Canagarajah, Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999. There is now a massive body of work available on the ways in which English has been appropriated and indigenised; the classic is Braj Kachru (ed.), The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures (2nd edn), University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1992.
