Language theory and reflection: A war of attrition, yet a much-needed exercise for teachers, researchers, and language enthusiasts. [my fav substack up to now]

How does language operate without an accurate representation of the reality the speaker is rooted in? Why is theorization so important in the process of understanding and making sense of language?

We have finally approached the end of the year. While services are winding down, for us teachers, some of us are already envisioning the upcoming year—thinking about the courses we want to take, the lessons we want to offer, and the ideas we want to put into practice.

In the meantime, I was perusing the pages of a book I had started reading a while ago but eventually gave up on for some reason. I am not used to putting books down easily, but I reckon this time things were rough and grim, and I was unable to dive into it. I went back to it later, after catching up with a friend of mine, where we navigated a boatload of topics in the realm of language, culture, and theory.

I want to include a caveat in my text to clarify that this reflection was first and foremost prompted by an anticipated meet-up with a friend whose work I truly and deeply admire. Raiza, from @raizaology_ [Instagram], and I got together for a 4-hour chat on a wide range of topics. She's been based in the UK, but, to my great luck, she came to Brazil for a family gathering and those end-of-the-year celebrations. Naturally, I seized this unique opportunity to host a small gathering at one of my favorite spots in São Paulo, Futuro Refeitório—a neighborhood restaurant I am truly passionate about.

We had many shared queries, and we took this opportune moment to dive into them. As a result, this invigorating chat sparked my curiosity about language theory and teacher development. Some questions had been previously sparked by Leo Gomez post on his instagram page. Later that day, after our conversation, I reflected on some insights and revisited a book I had started reading a while ago—one that now felt even more relevant. In fact, this conversation prompted me to revisit a myriad of other books I had read but hadn’t yet figured out how to approach. The very first one on this list is The Power of Language: Multilingualism, Self, and Society by Viorica Marian.

In this book, Marian beautifully encapsulates the ebb and flow of speaking a second language without fetishizing it. The very first lines present quite thought-provoking theoretical assumptions:

“Knowing multiple languages can lead to new ways of thinking that are otherwise unattainable. Just as learning maths makes it possible to do things that were otherwise unimaginable - like building artificial intelligence ....”

She shrewdly remarks that every new language we learn enables us to extract and interpret information differently, reshaping how we think and perceive the world around us. Alongside the complexities she addresses in the book, it is crucial to reinvigorate this statement by emphasizing that our contemporary cultural style feigns transparency and instantaneity, airbrushing the perilous contradictions embedded in our twenty-first-century yearning for presence, reality, and objectivity.

Our everyday life offers different ways of engaging with reality, shaped by how incoming input is organized through language. But how does language operate without an accurate representation of the reality the speaker is rooted in? First and foremost, language and reality are undeniably intertwined with the processes of deciphering and making sense of the social and cultural spaces that surround us. Multiple symbolic systems not only reshape how our minds function but also alter the very structure of reality itself. The effect language has on us is transformative, guiding us in naming objects and subjects.

But how does this play out?

I would like to broach the idea of language that I believe I am mostly susceptible to while teaching. For Jacques Derrida and some theorists in the 60s, architecture of a language is a form of social affiliation, characterized by heterogeneous interpolations and ambivalence. The advent of language lies in the impossible unity of a community as a coherent whole. The core of a language is an absence of signification - nothing is simply named when a word is invoked. It opens up all the windows to polysemy and ambiguity, which are integral parts of language in his view. A simple declaration of a word does not preserve the power of a it that makes the existence of the thing both appear and disappear upon being declared.

In terms of more specific terminologies, words can convey complex and varied concepts by encoding chunks of information into compact vocables and communicable units. As I previously noted in my last Substack, the words used to describe and construct reality are transported into a specific language, where they are endowed with a new architecture, syntax, and tailored logic intricately tied to each speaker's style. This process produces an unstable and undecidable relationship between meaning and form, creating space for the revelation of the logic of language. No longer confined to an adaptive, one-size-fits-all process, this shift challenges entrenched realities. By acknowledging our gaps, variations, and imprecisions, we can draw upon our multiple and conflictual inner nature to reawaken our capacity to create and reshape forms—forms that were once strictly and fully tied to biased and totalitarian regimes of worldviews and interpretations.

The impact of this process is not confined to its primary function; it extends to memory, emotion, perception, and the entire human experience. At the end of the day, our role is to guide learners through the vast sea of possibilities in lexical items and forms, each tied to insatiable and variable meanings. Isn’t that what we do as language tutors? Language is undeniably a tool for creation—people often recall events that occurred in a particular language when that same language is used during the act of recall. In essence, this process represents the creation of memory through language—people, places, feelings, sensations, and objects.

In addition, language has the power to create new subjectivities. Speakers of multiple languages often report not only feeling different but also experiencing distinct bodily reactions and making different decisions depending on the language being used. Marian highlights that a substantial body of research under the umbrella of the Foreign Language Effect suggests that people tend to make more logical decisions when operating in a non-native language across various domains. Finally, she asserts that language transforms individuals, revealing unknown facets of their personalities and fostering the development of different identities: learning languages provides diverse ways of structuring the universe.

In essence, language appears to be both a life-affirming practice and an argument for embracing alternative modes of existence. I am inclined to believe this is one of the reasons why language proficiency is not inextricably tied to identity or the feeling of being “yourself” in a second language. That said, I can only make such a claim with a clear and solid grasp of language—acknowledging that language should not be perceived as a static, ever-available entity. Instead, it is crucial to illuminate the interplay between language and its signification, which forms the foundation of reality and its variations.

We may hold differing views on the concept of language; perhaps your perspective is shaped by a distinct epistemological framework. Nonetheless, the essence of the matter remains: regardless of how you conceptualize language, there must be a guiding structure—one that functions both as a compass for decision-making and as a springboard for theorization and creative exploration.

As it happens, on no account should we have a strict and transparent, shared meaning of language in which all language experts may steer through this intricate system of patterns—the question is how language may have far-reaching consequences depending on the query we raise to resolve. What, then, is the form of this language problem we are trying to investigate?

From a linguistic standpoint, for instance, language can be seen not as an inflexible and unified pattern but as a variety of languages produced by a system of linguistic expressions within situational factors that may vary from regional, social, historical, and dialectical. These are some of the things we would dwell upon. In this sense, seeing language as a non-unified and heterogeneous tangled web of variations that, at its core, is imprecise, natural, variable, and contextual, is not out of the realm of possibility—this is actually a much more fruitful way of working out its meanings and consequences for us at the outset.

Dwelling upon the definition of language is an unremitting process that can be daunting at times. It is, by far, a war of attrition, yet a much-needed exercise to unpack and examine its foundation. As far as I am concerned, it is tempting to reply to language queries in strict disciplinary terms, pointing out its inconsistencies and deviations—but we only gain a comprehensive insight into the topic once we approach it without thinking that universal categories are meaningful without their particular counterparts. If we aim to dissect its subtleties, it is crucial to keep in mind that we are always engaging with language through a biased and particular viewpoint, attempting to later broaden its scope to encompass a more universal sense.

There are plenty of overarching and well-constructed essays on language being published on a scale not seen before—a notable influx of texts examining contemporary phenomena, from technology to societal issues, all intertwined with neatly detailed arguments that position language at the forefront of these shifts in communication. My stance may not sit well with everyone, but to me, it is clear that the jarring contrast between how essays on these topics are crafted in our current moment and how they were in the past lies in our heightened awareness and circumspection about the claim that no two individuals ever truly speak the same language in any given context.

I like this quote from a book by Fritz Mauthner, titled O Avesso das palavras: histórica da cultura e crítica da linguagem, in which he remarks that, like our living and vivid language, there is an erroneous belief: that because something urges to be voiced, we speak it. It speaks volumes about his theoretical assumptions that, in the end, there is no such thing as a general language but only individual and tailor-made languages.

This assumption sparks a fruitful dialogue with Ferdinand de Saussure, in one of his most noteworthy findings: that a linguistic sign does not name a preexisting entity but encapsulates its conceptual and phonetic distinction between two adjacent signs—the signified and the signifier—within a system of pure differences, with no positive terms, only contrasts.

This theoretical proposition does not correspond to our individual realities, whether social or personal. It is a much more general and abstract construction of language that, to my knowledge, is ingrained and fully embedded in the construction of distinct and individual languages and realities. This same process occurs in every relationship we have with language, regardless of the reality we experience as individuals.

This observation points to two game-changers. First, if there is no such thing as the experience of language outside its embodiment in signs and their differences, we can only operate within context—historical, societal, or personal—through the same language system.

This system functions primarily through the differences between patterns and meanings. For instance, the noun 'flower' does not have a strict dictionary definition; rather, it exists within a tangled web of differences: a part of a plant, often colored, and potentially fragrant. This illustrates that there is no definition outside this embodiment in signs and their relationships, as evident in the structure of dictionaries.

Second, with the nonexistence of language as an inconstant and immutable norm, our role is to approach it in novel ways that signify and bring a non-neutral perspective to its historical context and foundation. Ultimately, these efforts reveal a profound connection with a theoretical repertoire that allows us to explore and reconstruct the seemingly insignificant details of language, which influence so much of society. Theory, as we can see, helps us gently excavate the life of signs that, at times, dominate our communication. To a certain extent, these signs simply require their genealogy to be excavated and rearranged to produce new significations and meanings.

In terms of theory, this is the dormant facet of an implicit process that occurs as we operate with language; it awakens students to a deeper dimension of the raw material they seek to sharpen and transform into a refined, sophisticated version of language.

At this point, we have reached two possible theoretical speculations on the language we engage with. Why am I going on about it? While I am very passionate about working with language through a lexical approach, focusing on communicative competence, I can't help but meditate on a series of questions that may be, to some extent, the driving force of our work.

To speak of the driving force of our work is to wade through the heterogeneous forms that characterize language, but it is only tangible through theorization. To Jonathan Culler, in Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction, theory signals “speculation," but by no means can it be deemed a guess, nor can it be a vague thought on a subject. A theory, by contrast, involves complex relations of a systematic kind among a number of factors.

Rather than solely reproducing what is being said about one object, theory is, by all means, defined by its practical effects, as it makes people think differently about their object of study. In this sense, it is, in fact, a pugnacious critique of common-sense notions and forms through the excavation of their historical constructions.[Not only do I like this idea, but I also truly believe in this process as a teacher and a language researcher]

Authors and theorists play a pivotal role in unpacking a myriad of possibilities to enhance our teaching experience, as well as the learning environment for learners. This is where our cultural and historical literacy is instrumental: it helps us to be more discerning about what we consume as professionals while also enabling us to generate our own theoretical assumptions. At the heart of any theory lies the stimulation to undo established ideas; by contesting postulates, we begin to formulate meaningful questions and gain a clearer sense of the implications of the queries that emerge in our minds.

As teachers, we cannot subscribe to the idea that a single methodology encompasses all we need. On the contrary, approaches and theories are always constrained by the blurry boundaries of a specific time period and paradigmatic framework. The problem lies in how we digest and make sense of an idea or teaching approach in a new context.

As a disclaimer, it would be ludicrous to hold the belief that a theory or its quality is naturally subject to its immediacy. A theory may not be the most efficient way to translate ideas into actions, but recognizing its pitfalls and gaps can stimulate thought. In the same direction, theory, linguistic studies, research, and critical thinking counteract the urge for immediacy—this state of instantaneity and direct presence, in itself. Much to our dismay, these realms of research may fall short of teachers' expectations, as they fail to bridge the gap between proficient teachers and those who lack the bare minimum of language and communicative skills to teach.

In the eminent tradition of immediacy, research, thinking and linguistic studies are, to some extent, microorganisms of wider systems that spark either curiosity or an active process of relating - making sense and making meaning by making available in language the supervalent abstractions unavailable to our sensuous perception.

As a case in point, I’d illustrate my argument with a theoretical underpinning from the French theorist Patricie Manglier, in his book “A Vida Enigmática dos Signos.” In this work, his primary goal is to lay bare the complex edifice of language by reviewing Fernand Saussure’s theories from a more holistic and abstract perspective. Manglier argues that one of the most pervasive views on language stems from an extremist objectivist and materialist standpoint, where language is expected to be tied to what is known as reality. Surprisingly, we learn that reality is actually permeated by abstraction, uncertainty, gaps, imprecision, fantasy, imagination, assumptions, and speculation.

In this context, Manglier emphasizes a linguistic masterpiece titled “Language and the Study of Language” to draw our attention to the fact that there is no such thing as “literal” meaning, as this is based on a biased assumption that linguistic realities can be conveyed and demonstrated like any given material reality. A robust counter to this entrenched view is that every concept in linguistics and language theory is, by nature, a metaphor composed of other parts, which together produce a sense of meaning that encapsulates complex and nuanced ideas. Furthermore, concepts must adopt a discernible medium and distance themselves from ordinary communication and banal functionality, operating within a system that reroutes common sense.

In connection with this line of thought, the idea of rerouting common sense reminded me of a book I read at some point this year titled “Immediacy or The Style of Too Late Capitalism”, by Anna Kornbluh. A striking aspect of this book is, hands down, its writing style, which is both captivating and enticing. She masters a writing style that is thoroughly attuned to the very core of the book: a style that showcases its aesthetic and beauty while addressing overarching themes, such as imagination, writing, and theory. All of these topics are somewhat linked to the problem of immediacy.

Immediacy and common sense operate within the same realm, with one serving as a counterpart to the other: immediatism often gives rise to common-sense ideas, which stand in stark contrast to the slow and laborious process of theorization. At its core, she argues, this line of thought is rooted in crisis—and the more this crisis obstructs careful metabolization, the graver the consequences for theoretical mediation. The widespread, immediate search for effective, spot-on techniques to address language-related issues should instead be transformed into opportunities for reflection and slower, more deliberate research. Such opportunities can make our practice even more valuable, equipping us with the capacity to reflect deeply and contribute to social transformation.

One specific idea that stood out from Kornbluh's book was the dreamlike images she created while ruminating on teachers who have a special opening—their classrooms can be clinics of immediacy where they thicken the symbolic, estrange language, closely read, and uncover unknowns, slowing down the process. What’s more, once we acknowledge our intellectual efforts as theorists, we also engage in the real disagreement about the limits of many paradigms of concreteness, prejudice, and biased views, making interventions in the extensive and entrenched material conditions and ideological formations of language. It’s a game changer to perceive words as tiny stoppers against the tide of immediacy, mechanism, reproductivity, and the humdrum of non-organic language.

In the end, it all comes down to a simple yet decisive question a friend of mine posed the other day: how can teachers approach language if they can barely conceptualize the language they attempt to teach? If no curiosity is aroused in the process? If they don’t seem susceptible to grappling with language issues? It's no wonder that there is no pressure on them to master all language rudiments and their bare essential concepts. What is at question is the extent to which teachers are prompted to experience language from a different perspective, questioning its paradigms and foundations so they can produce their own speculative moments and theoretical assumptions, without needing to rely on the assumptions and experts stuck in the 90s.

Truth be told, there is no ready-made theory to be incorporated or a 'real-life course for teachers.' We don't mean to shake language to its foundations but to be furnished with the essentials to deepen our understanding and navigate the contemporary and intricate relationship between language and the different social and cultural realities that spring up in the classroom. Contrary to some beliefs, language theory will not meet most of our contemporary and immediate expectations of what we fantasize as reality.

This is because reality is not ready-made, nor can it be bought like an affordable commodity in a language course. Indeed, reality is truly a layered construction we keep striving to achieve in the course of our lessons. When it comes to language, I dare say that it is a powerful tool to bottle up a moment in the world and society, whereas theory serves as a catalyst for further understanding of the language we approach and use to dissect and orient realities.

Conversely, this does not mean that theory, and its subtleties, is, by nature, a toolkit that is directly applicable to reality as if it were a teaching technique—even teaching techniques should not be viewed this way. Putting it bluntly, they are not instant and discernible knowledge to be applied but rather an extreme and constant variable and layered repertoire to guide us through the choppy waters of a lesson.

In sum, that is when theory comes in handy: it should help us make broader and more astute decisions after meaningful and deeper reflection sparked by theorists and interlocutors.

References, or texts that helped me to build this essay:

English as a global Language - David Crystal

Language and the internet - David Crystal

Big questions in the ELT - Scott Thornbury

How languages are learned - Patsy M. Lighybown and Nina Spada

The Power of Language - Viorica Marian

Língua e realidade - Vilém Flusser

Pensamento e Linguagem - L. S. Vigotski

O avesso das palavras: história da cultura e crítica da linguagem - Fritz Mauthner

A vida enigmática dos signos - Patrice Maniglier

Curso de linguística geral - Ferdinand Saussure

A aventura semiológica - Roland barthes

Of grammatology - Jacques Derrida

Writing and difference - Jacques Derrida

Acts of Literature - Jacques Derrida

Margins of philosophy - Jacques Derrida

Dissemination - Jacques Derrida

Post-structuralism - James Williams

Immediacy or, the style of too late capitalism - Anna Kornbluh

Futuro Refeitório - São Paulo, Pinheiros.

Raiza: substack : https://substack.com/@raizaponticelli

Raiza: instagram: https://www.instagram.com/raizaology_/

Leo Gomez: https://www.instagram.com/direct/t/17842204719025545/