1.6 Reflect and discuss
In this unit, we introduced the following concepts:
- English is more like a galaxy than a rock
- Many people have a monolithic concept of English and other languages
- Most linguists believe that monolithic concepts of language(s) are idealisations
- Monolithic concepts of English are associated with the rise of ‘Standard English’
- Monolithic concepts of English have developed for both social and cognitive reasons
- Rules can be seen as ‘regulations’ dictating ‘correct’ usage.
- Rules can also be seen as ‘regularities’ describing ‘actual’ usage
- Monolithic concepts of English can be challenged on at least four levels: ontological, ethical, socio-economic, and pedagogical
Reflection 1.3
Reflect in greater depth on one or more of these concepts and then take part in discussion with other course users in the discussion section at the bottom of this page, replying to one or more previous posts.
Note: Please complete this exercise in order to be eligible for the Course Certificate.
I’m fascinated by the idea of English being more like a galaxy than a rock, and it really reflects how I teach English. This analogy shows how vast and complex English is—it’s always changing and growing, like a dynamic universe, not staying the same like a rock.
When we think of English as a galaxy, we see all the different ways people speak it, from different places and communities. Just like stars in a galaxy, each type of English has its own special qualities and cultural influences, making global communication diverse and interesting.
I fully agree with this. I’m always thinking about how amazing it is that I (UK born and raised native English speaker) have been exposed to so many different types of English not only within the UK but also in other English speaking countries. When I watch, for example, American or Australian TV, of course I understand 99% of it off the bat but there’s always some particular region specific words that make me take pause, but I understand the next time I hear it but it’s funny how I’ve been using English as my main language for decades and there are still new things for me to learn. And there’s always new slang appearing online, which is fascinating. One day I’ll see a word being used in a context I’ve never seen it before, and then it’ll keep appearing everywhere, and we all just adopt this new usage of a word. We’re watching English change in real time right in front of our eyes while new pieces of language are created to fill the gaps we find we have.
It would be foolish to think that English is a rigid set of rules and predefined words when language was created to express and describe and share.
It is an interesting thought process. It really puts into perspective how fast and expansive a language can be when compared to a galaxy, especially when that galaxy is compared to something as simple as a rock.
I also agree, I do find the analogy of comparing language to a galaxy. Just like a galaxy, language is limitless and continuously expanding and growing as it evolves overtime into different stars, moons and planets. Whilst a rock, is formed yet deteriorates over time which definitely does not suit the expansion of language in my opinion – too simple for the complicated aspect of language.
The fact that 3,200 new words have been added to the Cambridge Dictionary just this year is evidence enough to me that the English language is a galaxy and not a rock. Looking at some of the new additions (one of my favourites being the “chef’s kiss”) shows us how language is shaped and invented by its users in order to fulfill a communicative function. Even after 30+ years of being an English instructor, I find it fascinating and am very aware of the need to stay in tune with my learners’ ever-changing needs.
In terms of how sustainable monolithic ideas about English are, I can confidently now say that in our globalized world they are not sustainable. It is unrealistic to expect that in a classroom in which the teacher is a “non-native” speaker and their students are Chinese, Mexican, Saudi Arabian, German, Dutch, French etc. everyone’s English will be the same, uniform and “standard”. And it would be quite boring if it were, wouldn’t it?
It is still a struggle in classrooms in the US or the UK for instance, or in South Korea or China as well (some years ago schools in these countries were requiring that English teachers applying to teach there have a passport from an “English-speaking country” like US, UK, Australia etc. They might still be requiring this), because I think that even if one tried to teach a standardized form on English, it would not ‘come out’ as such in the majority of learners, but it still expected, especially in a highly academic context. And because teachers want their students to get into a US or UK university, they will teach the English needed for them to do so. I suppose one must always adapt to their context.
With the ELT industry being so profitable, it is hard to imagine English varieties being totally accepted and taught in schools and universities, but I do hope that with the high number of NNS teachers and also different student needs, that this will change in time. Hard to imagine the big proficiency tests accommodating for local varieties though…thoughts on this?
I suppose there could be a competency test for advanced speakers of English that allowed them to demonstrate their understanding of different Englishes appropriate to different contexts! That would be interesting.
This would be a great idea in some contexts where English is deemed as an ESL. As an English teacher, i have noticed that many learners can benefit from a test that assesses their abilities, however, the IELTS is a national ‘norm’ to advance in education.
Absolutely true. Most academic exams check the knowledge the students don’t need in real life. I’d rather all exams focused on real life situations: how to order sth, how to negotiate, how to purcase etc.
Amazing idea. The language is evolving so much that sometimes native speakers don’t know the word non-natives do.
In my opinion, the idea that rules can be viewed both as ‘regulations’ dictating ‘correct’ usage and as ‘regularities’ describing ‘actual’ usage is thought-provoking. This dual perspective acknowledges the prescriptive and descriptive aspects of language rules, highlighting the tension between standardized norms and the dynamic nature of language in everyday usage. Additionally, challenging monolithic concepts of English on ontological, ethical, socio-economic, and pedagogical levels offers a comprehensive approach to understanding and addressing linguistic diversity. It encourages critical reflection on the nature of language, its social implications, and the role of education in promoting linguistic inclusivity.
I agree, approaching the so-called rules of a language as regularities, rather than as regulations is exciting for many reasons, not the least because it changes how most people within and outwith a classroom talk about language, in a way that is beneficial to both learners and native speakers alike.
I believe that our role as teachers is to help our students become effective communicators, and this includes exposing them to diverse ways of speaking and writing English.
The monolithic mindset and how it perceives English not only restricts the freedom in linguistic creativity but the freedom of communication. It is more than reasonable to suggest that the monolithic view is the ideal universal level for the English language, however, it is to be criticised as to why it has been established when most native speakers do not even use the standardised rules and structures yet still have their messages come across perfectly fine. If the entirety of the English-speaking population spoke in standardised English, people will come across as ‘robotic’ as slang and words that do not exist in the standard version of language are heavily connected to cultural identity and social backgrounds.
In my opinion, the analogy of the English language resembling a galaxy in the pluralithic sense is far more suiting than the rock analogy, it shows an open-minded idea of the complicated aspects of how a language has developed. The variations of English are developed in the same way as to how English developed from Germanic roots, which leads to the question as to why some linguists choose to stop the freedom of development now?
This is important — as is the fact that we don’t expect the most “advanced users” of the language to adhere to monolithic forms, such as poets deliberately employing ambiguous language and academics coining new terms. There is definitely a double standard involving who gets to chart new areas of the galaxy and who is expected to stay on the rock!
I prefer to think of English as an iceberg than a galaxy. There are parts of a language that need to be learned – grammar, vocabulary and how they work together in order to communicate and this is what you see above the water. Below the water line lies the varieties, dialects, identities, contexts in which learners of any language (including English) possess. There are also the reasons why learners want to develop linguistic competence and whether the teacher can help these people reach their goals given that each learner carries a suitcase of experiences of learning. A monolithic approach is still appropriate depending on the course objectives – who is learning, who is teaching and where they hope to arrive on their journey. Teaching ESOL in London will be very different to teaching English in a Ugandan school. Most teaching situations around the world will vary and continue to evolve.
I like your idea of the iceberg. Actually, we might need some rules to have a minimum of consistency on where to start and develop at the beginning. The underwater ice mass would include all the ideas you have mentioned (and probably more). Now, how can we deal with so many Englishes in the classroom is an extremely challenging task. In our current world, students and their families push teachers to get them ready for exams and “forget” about the essential element: communication. Managing these expectations is problematic on many occasions. Maybe, international exams should be modified as to cater for all these Englishes and reflect the real world.
“Taching ESOL in London will be very different to teaching English in a Ugandan school”
Of course it is. Beacuse the teaching motives and objectives are different.
I love this idea of an iceberg rather than a galaxy; it is an easier and more tangible way for me to understand the plurilithic concept of languages. There is no right or wrong version of English, or of any language for that matter. As you put it so nicely, what is above the surface is what needs to be learned- grammar, vocabulary, sentence structure-to be able to communicate effectively, whilst everything below the surface-dialects, accents, context-is not wrong, but simply different ways to also communicate.
The emphasis on prescriptiveness must in part come from learning English in a classroom setting, through teaching, rather than through listening/use/immersion, as we learn to talk as infants. So, I wonder if an appreciation of plurilithic English opens up much more fun ways of learning and teaching – though potentially more difficult or more time-consuming?
Yes, I think the whole ‘standard’ ideology is perpetuated in classroom settings. I understand that it might be more consuming, but what we can start doing is to teach the white listener subjects that other varieties of English are also legitimate.
An interesting thought, Katherine. It is a pity that classrooms are different. The native environment can be replicated to a certain extent in private language schools where classes are 2 or 3 hour-long. If we take state education systems, I don’t think it is possible to move away substantially either from the monolithic concept of language (but the plurilithic outlook on the part of the teacher would make students’ life a lot easier) or from the prescriptive approach. Little changes in the classroom, however, also matter a lot.
I have never thought about rules in language as either being regulation or regularity. The dominant sense of rule in language teaching textbooks and classroom contexts has been that there is ‘standard’ or ‘correct’ language out there, which all English language learners need to aspire to. Deviations from this ‘standard’ form are often met with all forms of discrimination and bias. Highlighting that rules can also be seen as ‘regularities’ would encourage people to see language use as plurilithic. In every ‘disorder’ one might think there is in a language use, there is also an ‘order’ or regularity in that language use. Such understanding will help address the raciolinguistic ideologies about English language use.
Through teaching we will be able to learn and understand more about the ‘rules’ and also show the dynamism of English as a language.
While teaching , we can benefit from monolithic and plurilithic concepts of language.
Rules can be seen not only as “regularities” describing “actual” usage, but as a logic to apply in different contexts. Learners need a logical approach and this is where the rules become important, not only to make the language necessarily correct.
Personally, I always make sure I know what the students’ purpose is (an exam, business communication, travelling ecc) and then I adapt my courses to their actual needs.
I teach English on high school level in Finland. Our main goal is to prepare students so that they can communicate in English in their further studies, working life and also in the free time. Our students consume a lot of media in English, play online games in English etc. At school we basically teach ‘standard English’, which is required in the national exam in English, but we (both teachers and students) are also very aware that the English they use in their free time is often very far form that as they communicate with both native and non-native speakers.
So the plurilithic idea of the language is present in class.
I would prefer to see English continues to remain like one huge monolith rock with its mostly intelligible rules and forms of Standard English remains mostly unchanged.
Correction *
I would prefer to see English continues to remain like one huge monolith rock with its mostly intelligible rules
and forms of Standard English remain* mostly
unchanged.
I would join you and would like to have some framework to be followed. I can understand and support the idea of many Englishes as a non-native speaker but at the moment as a teacher I think about assessment for instance. How should students be assessed?
It is hard to talk about assessment for the time being. However, I guess all you can do is at least warn your learners of the existence of other varieties of English speech and encourage them to bring in their own English varieties in their creative writings.
Why would you prefer that?
It’s interesting that you felt the need to comment again because you made the tiniest typo, which would not prevent anyone from understanding you.
Even though this would be easier for teachers, maybe for most EFL learners as well, this is and actually never has been the case. Every language evolves as its users learn something new. The vocabulary changes, and so does pronunciation and even grammar. Rules quite often make us feel safe: we might think that following rules ensures that we are understood. Yet we all have experienced how wrong people might interpret each other, no matter how precise and correct they try to be in their expression.
However, I do feel that we need a `standard´ as a starting point. Once we have learned the basics that are `common knowledge´, we are able to take in information about different varieties and how they might differ from `ours´.
As a non-native speaker, I always check ‘correct’ usage in the dictionary and grammar books, depending a lot on codification. However, with the help of the Internet, it is easier to get access to more discussions and forums initiated by different English speakers around the world, learning exceptions and varieties. Because of being exposed to a variety of English languages helps me realise ‘regularities’ rather than ‘regulations’, highlighting communicative competence as the priority of the language.
It is also groundbreaking to notice, react, and reflect through different lenses such as ontological, ethical, socio-economic, and pedagogical perspectives.
I think the advent of the internet has done a lot for non-standard English learning! It is so much easier to appreciate the diversity of language use now that we have this immediate access to informal communication
It is true that English is no longer one standard variety that should be used by all people around the world in the same way. English is now a global language that is spoken in a wide range of different variations and it is thus necessary to take this diversification in the language into account.
Viewing English as a galaxy, not a rock, inspires me to appreciate its vastness and diversity. This metaphor ignites my curiosity, prompting me to explore its endless possibilities and embrace its dynamic nature with open-mindedness and wonder.
Focusing on the concepts of monolithic thinking, I can understand why this mindset is common. England – English. France – French. Spain – Spanish. China – Chinese (which is a group of languages, not a language itself). Korea – Korean. But sometimes this idea that language belongs to a location might be more apparent with other languages like Korean or Mandarin. In Korean to construct the word ‘Spanish’ you combine country + suffix -> 스페인 (Spain) + 어 = 스페인어 (Spanish). This is similar to Mandarin. I’m not sure how to word what I’m trying to express but I think you understand what I’m trying to express.
Additionally, in some workplaces, employees will wear nametags and on these nametags are flags that represent the languages the employee speaks. You might see the French flag to represent the French language, but this representation is flawed. What if Hong Kong’s flag is on there, what language(s) does the employee speak? And this theme of flags representing languages can be seen in peoples’ social media profiles such as “I speak: [insert emojis here cause I can’t do them on a laptop]”. Even small things we don’t realise we are doing reinforces the notion that language is monolithic.
I totally agree with what you propose because using flags to represent languages can be problematic because it simplifies the complex relationship between language and national identity. Flags are symbols of countries, not languages, and equating them can lead to misunderstandings and reinforce the idea that languages are monolithic and confined to specific national borders, moreover using flags as symbols of language fails to capture the nuances of linguistic diversity. For instance, Spanish Language, the Spanish flag is often used to denote the Spanish language, but Spanish is spoken across Latin America, where each country has its unique dialect and cultural context.
The first unit of the course has been very helpful. And it provides a context for understanding a lot of what is wrong in ELT. Languages are dynamic and complex systems, and this is what I love about them. Recently I started learning Filipino/Tagalog which has very little in common with European languages. I have Filipino friends which is one reason for my interest in the language, but more than that, I am fascinated and love the way in which Filipino and English are used in the country. Educators in the Philippines are embracing multi-lingual approaches to teaching English in schools. An approach which is so much more interesting and exciting than the tired old Eurocentric/Anglosphere-centric/monolithic belief in the exceptionalism of European languages.
Whan an interesting approach: teaching English in a native language style as mentioned they do in the Phillipines. I understand how you, a native speaker interested in broadening your view, would find it inspiring learning English in this style. However, somehow I do believe it is easier to communicate with some common base, acknowledging a Second Language Learner would somewhere use English incorrectly: communication would still be possible. In order for non-native users to communicate with less misunderstandings I find some common ground in basic English would be helpful – noting, that I do believe language is truly meant for communication and therefore should not be limited and confined within boarders; on the contrary, language is ever evolving.
Thinking of language as a communication basis, it is to me thrilling to understand your willingness to learn Filipino: hence, understanding the culture and the world from their perspective.
Most linguists believe that monolithic concepts of language(s) are idealisations. I totally agree with this statement. There are some reasons for my opinion.
– Languages are constantly evolving. New words are coined, meanings shift, and grammatical structures change over time. This dynamic nature of language makes it difficult to pin down a fixed, idealized version of any language.
– In many parts of the world, people speak multiple languages or dialects, often switching between them based on context, known as code-switching. This fluid use of language further complicates the idea of a monolithic language.
– The idea of a monolithic language often stems from language ideologies, which are beliefs and attitudes about language that reflect social and political power structures. These ideologies can promote a standardized version of a language as superior, overlooking the rich diversity of language use in practice.
In this unit, altough I was agreeing mostly with the monolithic view of language, now I am agreeing with the plurilithic side more. Language is not solely based of off structures and rules of English but it also contains social customs , slangs etc. There are variety of Englishes all around the world . Even in the same country people may have speak a different versions of it. So ‘Standart English’ is an idealisation which supports the monolithic view.
This really captured how English actually is in real life rather than the monolithic and smaller view of what English is.
I would say English continues to remain as largely similar to a monolith rock with forms of Standard English remains mostly unchanged, as they are fixed and often regarded as codified, and what we deem to be correct English.
It’s interesting to see the analogy of looking at I would prefer to see English continues to remain like one huge monolith rock.
Why would you prefer to see English as a monolithic rock, fixed and unchanging? Language, especially English, is much more like a galaxy—constantly evolving, expanding, and welcoming new additions. Holding onto the idea of a rigid, codified form ignores the richness that comes from cultural exchange, technological advancements, and creative expression. Languages thrive on flexibility and adaptation, and that’s precisely what keeps them alive and relevant. English, in particular, has a remarkable history of borrowing, innovating, and evolving, making it a living entity, not a static monument.
As an preservice teacher I´d say that is very pleasant to fin english more as an galaxy than a rock.this does not only open a whole new perspective to new methodologies and pedagogies but also breaks the limits on how much we can learn as academics,that,for me is very exciting.
As most of us can agree, we need a standard form of English – an English that has been codified in order that students of English can learn the language. I would argue that Standard English is no monolith. As English in use evolves over time, so too does Standard English. Dictionaries are updated annually and language teaching textbooks are constantly being reissued as new concepts, systems and technologies need to find linguistic expression. SE is certainly not as dynamic as the living language, how could it be? But it certainly ain’t no rock!
The rise of ‘Standard English’ relates to the codification of the English Language within the British Isles, which has since experienced globalization due to the historical colonialization of various countries previously under British rule. Monolithic concepts of English such as language having a “correct structure”, undoubtedly tie into ‘Standard English’ as colonization was ultimately the British spread of power and therefore national identity. Monolithic concepts were originally fostered by the national majority due to the codification of English and the fact that there was a nationally reinforced, “correct way to speak”. For example, the Monolithic view that grammar can only be learnt through memorizing rules and that anything other than “standard form” are deviations of the ‘ideal language’. ‘Standard English’ is built from Monolithic concepts, disregarding heuristic experiences and instead replacing them with discrete, describable systems that must be followed in order to speak ‘Standard English’.
The theory that English is more of a plurilithic language than a monolithic language really fascinates me, as I would have guessed before that English is more like a planet rather than a galaxy, due to the grammatical rules and sentence structures for example, but from widening my knowledge I can now see that the way I have been taught has had a huge impact on the way that I view language and therefore the way that I will teach English (now with the additional understanding of a more plurilithic approach to my teaching).
Through my previous statement, I have come to realise that understanding how language is “always changing and growing” ( said by another commenter / Fajarudin Akbar, 2024), is a interesting topic to many people, and it just shows that the way that we use language can be for many different reasons and purposes.
I liked the section about the two definitions of ‘rule’ and how they tie into prescriptivist/monolithic vs descriptivist/plurilithic beliefs. Consistency and regularity can be worthy goals for communication, whereas conformity to an external authority which decides right from wrong is ultimately just an expression of a power dynamic.
Before starting this course, I would have very much said that all languages have a monolithic system. They all have a strict set of rules and stay within those boundaries. But after finishing section 1, it is quite clear to me that this way of thinking is simply not true. Languages are dynamic and complex systems that are ever evolving. There is no single ‘correct’ version that can be taught. I myself am a native English speaker, but do not speak ‘standard English’ Being born and raised in Scotland, the English I use differs greatly, in some cases, being completely unintelligible to other native English speakers. Firstly, due to my accent, the way I pronounce certain words can be confusing if compared to ‘standard English,’ Some might even say ‘wrong.’ Then there is my dialect, adding local terminology to my vocabulary which, unless aware, can be jarring to non-locals. I use more informal speech when around friends and family. And then of course there is the English I use in formal settings, that of the classroom or work environment. Not to mention the fact I have been exposed to a wide variety of other English-speaking countries through media and the internet and have adopted some of their words into my own vocabulary too. Therefore, which version of English do I speak? Your guess is as good as mine. I change between different forms of englishes thought out a single day without even realizing it or consciously meaning to. The pluralithic concept of languages is a fascinating one, the way that multiple languages can overlap and co-exist with each other. I had never heard of the concept of Englishes being plural, rather than the singular English before. But it makes complete sense, there are hundreds and thousands of variations of English used and spoken in the United Kingdom alone. Globally there must be millions. And this does not apply to Englishes alone, but for every language around the world. In conclusion, English is indeed more like a galaxy than a rock.
The idea that English is more of a galaxy than a rock is extremely interesting to me. A plurilithic view on language makes so much more sense than a monolithic view since there is no one way to speak english. For example, an English conversation in England compared to an English conversation in china would be completely different however both would be just as effective. This is because both conversations would require different ways of using the english language therefore there is no one set of grammatical rules which makes english more of a complex galaxy rather than one simple structure.
After completing the first unit, a question kept coming to mind as a teacher: What should we teach our students? There’s no doubt that I felt more confident in my language skills as a non-native speaker, yet at the same time, I began to experience a healthy sense of confusion. For me, feeling confused indicates that the material I’m reading is thought-provoking. While I firmly believe and understand that English is a pluralistic language, I’m still uncertain about what exactly I should teach my students. Additionally, does labeling mistakes made by non-native speakers as “non-native features” change the fact that they are errors? Is calling them errors a form of linguistic discrimination?
The Plurilithic concept of English is not one i considered before. In past teaching experience i emphasised more on ‘Standard English’ not necessarily monolithic, but not even really considering those approaches. When i was teaching ‘non-native speakers’ of English there were clear variations between our ‘Englishes’ but that doesn’t mean they are incorrect or that my English is any better but only different. As long as there is an understanding between communicating there is no reason for their ‘English’ to be amended if it doesn’t fit ‘standard English’ rules. A point to consider when teaching, especially 1 on 1 lessons is focusing on what the student would like to achieve and not what as teachers you are told to achieve- this depends on what teaching setting you are in and what curriculum. Overall no matter what setting i think having a good understanding on both of these concepts is beneficial even if it is not necessarily possible to implement it.
In my opinion, it is true that many people have a monolithic concept of English and other languages. Usually when somebody talks about learning a language, the person means the only “correct” or the “best” version of it, definitely not an array of dialects and variations. When language students are asked what their goals are, the answer is always in the singular, e.g. “I want to improve my English” or “I want to learn English”, and I don’t think there is a teacher who expects to hear otherwise.
From the learner perspective there is nothing wrong with this situation. However, it may become more challenging for the learner if the teacher shares the monolithic concept of English. This may result in a very strict and prescriptive pedagogical approach which may eventually frustrate the student.
If, on the other hand, the teacher is guided by the plurilithic concept, student’s progress is very likely to be assessed in a more constructive and motivating way. More often than not feedback is a make it or break it factor – learning is a journey, and the key to success is to keep moving.