by Kwok Man Ka Sinead

Featuring conversations with Prof. Christopher Hutton, Dr. Adrian Pablé, Dr. Jaspal Singh, Jasper Wu and Nina Fang

Situated in the School of English at HKU is a strand of studies that has often slipped below the radar – integrationism (integrational linguistics). It is never easy to summarize this strand in one word: To some, the integrationist corner seems to be as elusive as ever. Integrationists in the School remain as onlookers who reflect on the happenings around them with their own therapeutic vision of language and communication, like pensive flies on the wall. It is in this sense that integrational studies can blend and engage with many areas of research. Yet the incompatibility between the integrational theory and other linguistic theories makes it equally fair to conceive of integrationism as a disconcerting presence in juxtaposition with the mainstream.

Adding to the paradoxes is the contrast between integrational studies being a rather established feature of the School of English and its low profile among students and the teaching staff alike. Unbeknownst to many, HKU is actually the institution where undergraduate students are exposed to integrationism to the greatest extent compared to the rest of the world (integrationist courses have been offered in cities like Cape Town, Copenhagen and a few places in England on a smaller scale). Courses delivered at HKU, which have an integrational touch to them include Theorizing Communication, Theories of Language and Communication, An Introduction to the History of English, English as a Language of Science, as well as the full-fledged integrationist course Signs, Language and Meaning: Integrational Reflections. Over the years the School of English has nurtured a considerable number of MA, MPhil and PhD students who have practiced integrationism in their papers and theses. In fact, there has not been a lack of publications on integrationism by HKU scholars. Yet one can say the recognition of it is disproportional to its permeation through the School on multiple levels. Despite the early exposure, many students would happily dispense with integrationism after learning its basics. The minority who do get riveted by the premises, however, can be inspired through and through. This I believe is where its charm lies. Perhaps integrationism, as Prof. Christopher Hutton puts it, is “like Buddhism – you either see it or you don’t”.

Due to its low profile, integrationism persists as a mysterious, even baffling term to many. Some indelible and amusing questions arise as a result of that, e.g. “does integrationism make a positive contribution?”, “what is being integrated in integrationism?”, or even “isn’t integrational linguistics just a kind of sociolinguistics?”.

For the sake of this article here is a short description, which probably will not do it justice or suffice for those who seek a thorough understanding: Integrationism is an illuminating way of perusing language and communication that values the creative and contextualized nature of individual communicative experiences, which may otherwise be disregarded by prescriptive analyses. An integrationist rejects an understanding of language through the conception of ‘languages’ as fixed codes, or an understanding of communication based upon anything shared and exchanged (e.g. a language/variety/word) between individuals. To dispel these assumptions is to begin to articulate an integrationist approach that can be distinguished from the many types of linguists whose enterprises cannot afford to do away with shared abstractions. Admittedly, integrational studies did emerge as a critique of mainstream linguistics. But it is unjust to assert that its positioning is only of a negative kind: the emphasis on heterogeneity and radical indeterminacy in communication instead of some idealized and non-existent homogeneous linguistic community cannot simply be dismissed as intellectually null. Furthermore, the development of integrationism as a semiology since the mid-1990s has pushed it beyond the critique of existing approaches. The integrationist semiologist proffers a positive but minimalistic account of communication as a forever contextualized process in which an individual integrates different activities via sign-making. What exactly is integrated is something an integrationist would not tell you – the activities in question merely come into the picture from an individual’s perspective in the moment of contextualization. In light of this, integrationism does not purport to be an authoritative theory: “I don’t think you should tell people how to speak,” as Roy Harris, the founder of integrationism, once said.

Harris spent three years at HKU as Professor of English Language and served as Head of the Department of English (1988-91). Giving up on an Oxford professorship and coming all the way to HKU, Harris probably had a distinct research interest in mind – the place of English in Hong Kong. “You might not like what he did, but he always did things for a reason”, said Chris Hutton during our brief chat. It is believed that he came prepared with a response to the anxiety around English in a pre-1997 Hong Kong: A thought-out plan regarding the institutionalization of English in Hong Kong and the reshaping of local linguistic attitudes. This plan was presented in his infamous inaugural lecture provocatively entitled “The Worst English in the World?” delivered in 1989, a time when English was still politically sensitive in Hong Kong. Though its true intent was perhaps generally overlooked by Harris’s contemporaries, this lecture was not aimed at denouncing a ‘Hong Kong English variety’ and promoting a ‘standard English variety’ to the locals. On the contrary, it was a refusal to acknowledge the existence of such varieties and an exhortation to Hong Kongers that they should take their responsibilities as language makers seriously and make English their own. The grounds for this proclamation were integrationally-centered attacks on the concept of ‘languages’ and the socio-dialectological categorizations of varieties. However, Harris did not make this explicit. Situated in a politically sensitive time, attendees of the lecture were mostly unsettled by the lecture’s title and saw Harris’ seemingly authoritative approach to institutionalize English as disapproval or a mockery of the current Hong Kong English variety spoken by locals.  Their unawareness of Harris’ true motives resulted in dissatisfaction with the lecture and a misapprehension of Harris as a colonialist (Harris’ being British did not help his case).

Harris’s rather short stay at HKU and his implicitness regarding his integrationist inclination (manifest in his approach to his inaugural lecture) meant his work at that time did not contribute much to the development of integrational studies at HKU. Harris might have found it difficult to teach integrationism in an explicit way, while it was not until the late 1990s that Harris finally decided integrationism could be a movement. This was the time when an integrationist semiology was in the making and when the International Association for the Integrational Study of Language and Communication was just formed. During his three years here, Harris might have expressed his critique of linguistics in the courses he taught, including one on semantics which he co-taught with Chris Hutton, but was never promoting integrationism at any point in that period. There were actually four integrationists at HKU when Harris was present, a small number that did not attract much attention. It was not until 2010 – one year after Dr. Adrian Pablé’s arrival at the university – that the first ever integrationist course (Signs, Language and Meaning: Integrational Reflections) was offered here, co-taught and co-devised by Chris and Adrian. During a decade of teaching at HKU, Adrian has been the main driving force in the dissemination of integrationist ideas on the undergraduate level. When asked about future teaching directions, he mentioned a plan to create a new course at HKU which combines integrationism with insights from Southern theories and initiates a new, radical way of thinking about linguistics informed by both approaches. “It basically amounts to looking at Northern linguistic theories as just one possible folk theory about language and languages on a par with Southern alternatives […] once we refute the scientific standing of Northern theories, they are not different from any other ethnocentric theory”. It would be interesting to see where integrationism fits into this Northern-Southern dichotomy, how much integrationism and Southern theories have in common, and whether integrationism is ‘just another’ general theory of communication.

 

Who in the School has read up on integrationism? What is the appeal of integrationism and what brings together people with an interest in it? Some members of the integrationist reading circle in the School were asked to recollect their first encounters with integrationism (and for some, with Harris himself).

Prof. Christopher Hutton:

Chris first met Harris in 1979 at the University of Oxford where they used to have weekly seminars followed by intellectual debates at the pubs. “He had an ability to pick holes, to think about things in unusual ways” – according to Chris, Harris enjoyed engaging in argumentation much more than small talk. “He did not patronize…he treated people as conversation partners, as equals, and he respected people who could argue a point”. Chris remembered first reading Harris’ The Language-Makers and finding it expansive and inspiring. He believes that anyone who finds integrationism stimulating and revolutionary does so because it “asks fundamental questions” and “recognizes individual experiences as valid”. Its appeal also rests upon its minimalism: It is up to what people make of it as it “does not give you a methodology” nor “a way of settling back into a position”.

Dr. Adrian Pablé:

Adrian discovered Harris in 2007. His first encounter with Harris’ works was his reading of Introduction to Integrational Linguistics when he was working as an assistant professor in Lausanne. He recalled reading the introduction of the book and being fascinated by it, so much that he decided right away to offer a course on the book. He also started contacting Harris via email and first met him in person at a conference in the same year. 2007 to 2009 was when Adrian refined his thinking along integrationist lines and began writing papers on integrationism (on which Harris would bestow his praise as well as “honest criticisms”). Adrian’s decision to become an integrationist was immediate without second thoughts, despite not knowing how far-reaching it would be at first. “I was always dissatisfied with ‘scientific’ linguistics […] There was something about linguistics that I didn’t like. Encountering Harris helped me understand why I didn’t like it.” To Adrian, the integrationist departure from other theories strikes him as a compelling factor for his dedication.

Dr. Jaspal Singh:

Jaspal first learnt about integrationism when he started his job at HKU over a year ago. “I thought it sounded great. I’m all for integrating things. Also in my personal life I integrate all the time”. Hence he joined a couple of reading circles, which he found “really stimulating because the questions that we asked about language and its social meaning were so basic, so refreshingly post-disciplinary and all-encompassing”. As someone who brands himself a ‘sociolinguist’, integrationism offers Jaspal a radically different perspective on language use in society: “A Copernican Revolution perhaps, which I believe can help us unlearn traditional sociolinguistic methods, epistemologies and ethics”. His reference to the Copernican Revolution is a very apt analogy – whereas modern linguistics has had languages as the center of linguistic studies, integrationism provides a counter discourse where communication, instead of languages, is set at the center.

Jasper Wu:

Jasper is an MPhil graduate and one of the current teaching assistants in the School. Integrationism was one of the very first things he encountered in his academic career. Rather than a theory of language, it has been to him a philosophical perspective on the ethics of communication. “While its emphasis on individual creativity in sign-making is certainly liberating, its reminder of the moral responsibility that comes with this freedom points to the equal importance of reflecting upon one’s own communicative practices. Integrationism provides a unique, critical perspective that allows one not only to ‘analyze’ others but also examine oneself”.

Nina Fang:

Nina is a PhD candidate currently supervised by Adrian. In 2017 she contacted Adrian regarding her PhD application and got recommended several books by Harris. “At the initial stage of my acquaintance with Harris’ works, I found them appealing because I thought Harris’ writing was quite witty and I did enjoy the sense of humor in his works. Later I’ve realized that Harris’ works are much more than just sarcasm and irony. They have transformed the great but also esoteric writings of capital Western thinkers into something ordinary students like me can understand and relate to”.

 

I have another origin story to offer: Integrationism was the very first thing I learnt about at HKU. I remember attending the first class of Theorizing Communication on my first day of school in my first semester as a year one undergraduate student. Frankly speaking, those three intensive, mind-boggling hours  almost compelled me to drop the course, but I was among the fortunate ones who chose to stay. The consciousness of my conversion into an integrationist had not dawned on me until I could no longer bring myself to agree with the linguistic premises underlying translation i.e. what I thought I would major in and make a living out of. This inspired my current studies of translation theories with an integrationist perspective. To me integrationism is far beyond an introspective space for me to reflect on linguistics. It is also a therapeutic way out of many personal, sociological and political issues, which in the end manifest themselves as arguments hinged on decontextualized abstractions and the failure to recognize the contextuality and individuality in communication. It is interesting how something I could hardly make sense of on first impression now makes sense of everything for me.

From the above, one sees the diversity of the people’s uses of and interactions with integrationism, demonstrating the extensiveness of integrationist ideas. This resonates with what Harris once said during an interview, “integrationism is only as unified or diverse as its practitioners”. It is not a matter of what you can find within integrationism, but what you can make of it.

 

Published on: April 2, 2020 < Back >