Integrational Linguistics and

Philosophy of Language in the

Global South

Exploring the nature of possible relationships between Integrational Linguistics and

Southern Epistemologies, this volume examines various ways in which Integrational
Linguistics can be used to support the decolonizing interests of Southern
Epistemologies, particularly the lay-oriented nature of Integrational Linguistics
that Southern Epistemologies find productive as a “positive counter-discourse”.
As both an anti-elitist and antiestablishment way of thinking, these chapters
consider how Integrational Linguistics can be consistent with the decolonial
aspirations of Southern Epistemologies. They argue that the relationship between
Southern Epistemologies and Integrational Linguistics is complicated by the fact
that, while Integrational Linguistics is critical of what it calls a segregationist view of
language, i.e., “the language myth”, Southern Epistemologies in language policy and
planning and minority language movements find the language myth helpful in order
to facilitate social transformation. And yet, both Integrational Linguistics and
Southern Epistemologies are critical of approaches to multilingualism that are
founded on notions of “named” languages. They are also both critical of linguistics
as a decontextualized, and institutionalized, extension of ordinary metalinguistic
practices, which at times influence the prejudices, preconceptions, and ideologies of
dominant western cultures.
This book will prove to be an essential resource for scholars and students not only
within the field of integrational linguistics, but also in other language and
communication fields, in particular the dialogic, distributed, and ecological-
enactive approaches, wherein integrational linguistics has been subjected to
scrutiny and criticism.

Sinfree B. Makoni currently teaches in the Department of Applied Linguistics and

the African Studies Program at The Pennsylvania State University.

Deryn P. Verity is a Teaching Professor of Applied Linguistics at The Pennsylvania

State University.

Anna Kaiper-Marquez is the Associate Director and Assistant Teaching Professor of the
Institute for the Study of Adult Literacy and the Goodling Institute for Research in
Family Literacy at The Pennsylvania State University.
Routledge Advances in Communication and Linguistic
Theory
Series Editor: Adrian Pablé

Language and History: Integrationist Perspectives

Edited by Nigel Love
Language Teaching
Integrational Linguistic Approaches
Edited by Michael Toolan
Rationality and the Literate Mind
Roy Harris
Critical Humanist Perspectives
The Integrational Turn in Philosophy of Language and Communications
Edited by Adrian Pablé
The Reflexivity of Language and Linguistic Inquiry
Integrational Linguistics in Practice
Dorthe Duncker
Integrationism and the Self
Reflections on the Legal Personhood of Animals
Christopher Hutton
Distributed Languaging, Affective Dynamics, and the Human Ecology Volume I
The Sense-making Body
Paul J. Thibault
Distributed Languaging, Affective Dynamics, and the Human Ecology Volume II
Co-articulating Self and World
Paul J. Thibault
Integrational Linguistics and Philosophy of Language in the Global South
Edited by Sinfree B. Makoni, Deryn P. Verity, and Anna Kaiper-Marquez

For more information about this series, please visit https://www.routledge.com/

Routledge-Advances-in-Communication-and-Linguistic-Theory/book-series/
RACLT
Integrational Linguistics
and Philosophy of
Language in the
Global South

Edited by
Sinfree B. Makoni, Deryn P. Verity,
and Anna Kaiper-Marquez
First published 2021
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa
business
© 2021 selection and editorial matter, Sinfree B. Makoni, Deryn P.
Verity and Anna Kaiper-Marquez; individual chapters, the
contributors
The right of Sinfree B. Makoni, Deryn P. Verity and Anna Kaiper-
Marquez to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and
of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or
other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval
system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Makoni, Sinfree, editor. | Verity, Deryn P., editor. |
Kaiper-Marquez, Anna, editor.
Title: Integrational linguistics and philosophy of language
in the global South / edited by Sinfree Makoni, Deryn P. Verity,
and Anna Kaiper-Marquez.
Description: London ; New York : Routledge, 2021. |
Series: Routledge advances in communication and linguistic theory |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020056798 (print) | LCCN 2020056799 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780367541842 (hardback) | ISBN 9781003088110 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Integrational linguistics (Oxford school) | Linguistic
analysis (Linguistics) | Linguistics‐‐Southern Hemisphere. | Language
and languages‐‐Philosophy.
Classification: LCC P121 .I58 2021 (print) | LCC P121 (ebook) |
DDC 410‐‐dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020056798
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020056799

ISBN: 978-0-367-54184-2 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-367-54185-9 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-08811-0 (ebk)

Typeset in Times New Roman

by MPS Limited, Dehradun
Contents

List of illustrations vii

List of contributors viii
Preface xiii

Introduction: Introducing integrational linguistics 1

SINFRE E B. M A K ON I , D ER YN P . V ER I TY AN D ANNA
KA IPER-M AR QU E Z

1 Edward said, Roy asked, and the peasant responded:

Reflections on peasants, popular culture, and
intellectuals 18
DA VID B A DE

2 Three critical perspectives on the ontology of

“language” 30
A DRIA N PA BL É

3 Integrationism, individualism and personalism:

The politics of essentialism 48
CHR ISTO PHER H U TT O N

4 A clash of linguistic philosophies? Charles Goodwin’s

“co-operative action” in integrationist perspective 66
PETE R E. J ON ES A N D D O RT HE D U N C KE R

5 Text annotations: Examining evidence for a

multisemiotic instinct and the intertextuality of the
sign in a database of pristine self-directed
communication 84
BA SSE Y E. AN T IA A N D L YN N MA FO FO
vi Contents
6 The semiological implications of knowledge ideologies:
A Harrisian perspective 104
X UAN FANG

7 Rhetoric and integrationism: In search of

rapprochement 122
KUNDA I C H I R I N D O

8 Integrationism and postcolonialism: Convergences or

divergences? An integrational discussion on ethnocen-
tricity and the (post)colonial translation myth 137
SINEAD KW OK

9 Integrationism and the Global South: Songs as

epistemic frameworks 156
CR ISTINE G . SEV E R O A N D S I N FRE E B. M AK ONI

10 Words and other currencies 170

CO R Y JUHL

11 Beyond IL: Languaging without Languages 183

R OBIN SA B I N O

Index 197
List of Illustrations

Figures
5.1 Annotation on course notes on odontogenetic tumors
by an international student (male, home-language Arabic) 90
5.2 Annotation on a textbook on psychology by a female
student (home-language isiXhosa) 91
5.3 Annotation by same student as in 5.2. Source: University
of the Western Cape. Text book of the Department of
Psychology.
Foundations of Psychology: Psychology 1 (Custom
edition). Cape Town: Oxford University Press, 2016 91
5.4 Annotation by a journal article on the political economy
of health by a female student (home language Setswana) 94
5.5 Meanings of underlines and highlights by students across
disciplines 96
11.1 Asymmetric frequency distribution of variants of the
NP + MODAL + have construction from Sabino 2018 191

Tables
11.1 Phonological conditioning of the variable (a:) for
79 languagers from Elba, Alabama 188
11.2 Influence of age and ethnicity on the use of (a:) in Elba,
Alabama 190
Contributors

Sinfree B. Makoni holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics from Edinburgh

University. He has held professional appointments at a number of
Universities in Southern Africa including the University of the Western
Cape, Bellville, South Africa and University of Cape Town. He currently
teaches in the Department of Applied Linguistics and the African Studies
Program at The Pennsylvania State University. He is Extraordinary
Professor in the Opentia Research Area in the Faculty of Humanities, at
the University of the North West, South Africa. He is the Andrew
Carnegie African Diaspora Fellow at Laikipia University, Kenya. His
main research areas are in Integrational Linguistics, Southern
Epistemologies and Language Policy and Planning. His most recent
publications are Innovations and Challenges to Applied Linguistics from
the Global South coauthored with Alastair Pennycook, 2020, and Language
Planning and Policy: Ideologies, Ethnicities, and Semiotic Spaces of Power
(coedited with Ashraf Abdelhay & Cristine Severo), 2020.
Deryn P. Verity is a Teaching Professor of Applied Linguistics at The
Pennsylvania State University. A specialist in teaching English as a
Second Language, and in language teacher education, she has published
on sociocultural theory, curriculum design, online pedagogy and course
design, academic writing tutor training, and the role of drama, SCT and
task design in language teacher education. She has lived and worked in
her home country, the United States of America, and in Serbia, Slovenia,
Poland, Thailand, and Japan. She is currently engaged in a longitudinal
research study on concept development in language teacher education.
Anna Kaiper-Marquez is the Associate Director and Assistant Teaching
Professor of the Institute for the Study of Adult Literacy and the Goodling
Institute for Research in Family Literacy in the College of Education at
The Pennsylvania State University. She has published several journal
articles, book chapters, and book reviews on adult basic education (ABE),
English language learning, and qualitative methodologies in national and
international contexts. Anna’s current research is centered on adult and
family language and literacy practices in U.S. urban areas as well as in
 Contributors ix
carceral settings. Anna was previously an ABE and English language
instructor in New Mexico and has taught English to K-12 and adult
learners in Thailand, Argentina, and South Africa as well as middle school
special education in the Bronx, New York.
Bassey E. Antia is Professor of Linguistics at the University of the Western
Cape, South Africa. He holds a PhD from the University of Bielefeld
(Germany). His teaching and research interests span Multilingualism (in
Higher Education), Language Policy, Terminology, Health Communication,
Corpus Linguistics, Decoloniality, Political Economy of English, and French
as a Foreign Language. He has authored Terminology and Language Planning:
An alternative framework of discourse and practice, edited Indeterminacy in
Terminology and LSP, and coedited Corpus Linguistics and African Englishes.
He has also coedited Managing Change at Universities, vol. III.
David Bade is a fifth-generation Illinois farmer and prior to his retirement
in 2014, a Senior Librarian at the University of Chicago’s Joseph
Regenstein Library.
Kundai Chirindo is Associate Professor in the Rhetoric and Media Studies
department at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon. He is the
Director of Lewis & Clark College’s Ethnic Studies Program, as well as
Director of General Education. A rhetorical scholar interested in
discourses that relate to the African continent, Kundai’s work centers
on discursive practices that contest, contribute to, and ultimately
constitute ideas of Africa in American public life. Through exploring
these themes, he contributes to scholarly conversations in rhetorical
studies, environmental communication, African and African American
Studies, and war and peace studies. His critical essays, commentaries, and
book reviews have appeared in Advances in the History of Rhetoric (now
Journal for the History of Rhetoric), Argumentation & Advocacy, Quarterly
Journal of Speech, Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Women’s Studies in
Communication, and in edited volumes.
Dorthe Duncker is Associate Professor of Danish language at the Department
of Nordic Studies and Linguistics, University of Copenhagen. Her interests
combine material philology and digital humanities with integrational
linguistics and focus on the foundational aspects of human communication
and the reflexivity and dynamics of language. She is Editor of the journal
Language & Communication and she recently published the monograph The
Reflexivity of Language and Linguistic Inquiry: Integrational Linguistics in
Practice, 2019.
Fang Xuan (Nina) is a current PhD student at School of English, The
University of Hong Kong and is writing a PhD thesis on integrational
linguistics and cognitive linguistics. She graduated from Sun Yat-sen
University in Guangzhou, China, in 2007, with a Bachelor of Arts degree,
x Contributors
majoring in German, and from the University of Hong Kong in 2009 with
an MPhil degree, at School of Modern Languages and Cultures,
supervised by Prof. Wayne Cristaudo. Her MPhil thesis is about Lewis
Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland and philosophy of language. She worked as
an editor at Nanfang Daily Press from 2010 to 2011, where her job was to
edit and publish translated books. Before enrolling in HKU again, from
2012 to 2019, she was a housewife. She is married and has two sons. Her
research interests are in the following fields: integrational linguistics,
cognitive linguistics, philosophy of mind, evolutionary psychology, and
cognitive science.
Christopher Hutton is Chair Professor in the School of English at the
University of Hong Kong. He studied modern languages and general
linguistics at the University of Oxford (BA 1980, DPhil 1988), and has an
MA in Yiddish Studies and Linguistics from Columbia University (1985)
as well as an LLB from Manchester Metropolitan University (2008). His
research concerns the history of linguistics, in particular the relationship
between linguistics and race theory. In the past decade, he has been
working on the politics of language and interpretation in the context of
the law. His publications include Linguistics and the Third Reich (1999),
Race and the Third Reich (2005), A Dictionary of Cantonese Slang (2005),
Word Meaning and Legal Interpretation (2014), and Integrationism and
the Self (2019).
Peter E. Jones is Reader in Language and Communication at Sheffield
Hallam University. His interests range widely over general linguistic
theory, integrational linguistics, the Marxist tradition and Marx’s
methodology, the role of communication in social organization, and
Vygotsky’s cultural-historical tradition in psychology.
John E. Joseph is Professor of Applied Linguistics in the University of
Edinburgh. His books include Eloquence and Power: The Rise of Language
Standards and Standard Languages (1987), Ideologies of Language (1990),
Landmarks in Linguistic Thought 2: The Western Tradition in the Twentieth
Century (with Nigel Love and Talbot J. Taylor, 2001), Language and
Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious (2004), Language and Politics (2006),
Saussure (2012) and Language, Mind and Body: A Conceptual History.
Cory Juhl received a BS in Physics from the Georgia Institute of Technology
in 1983 and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin in 1986. He
received a PhD in the History and Philosophy of Science from the
University of Pittsburgh in 1992. He has published a few dozen articles
pertaining to the philosophy of science, language, and mind. Since 1992
he has worked at the University of Texas at Austin, where he is currently
Professor and associate chair. His main current interest is the relation
between theories of language and mind on the one hand and the “hard
sciences”.
 Contributors xi
Sinead Kwok is a PhD student from the School of English, the University of
Hong Kong. She attained her BA from the same university. Her research
interests lie in integrationism, semiology, semiotics, language philosophies,
and translation theories. Kwok’s recent projects include a paper on an
integrationist critique of colonialist, poststructuralist, and postcolonialist
translation premises and another one on integrationism as a humanist
approach to the human–animal divide in language and communication. In
her thesis, Kwok will revisit Western translation theories in terms of their
underlying signification models and presuppositions regarding language
and communication, as well as proffer some integrationist insight into
central translation issues.
Lynn Mafofo is a lecturer in the department of Linguistics at the University of
the Western Cape in South Africa. She graduated from the same university in
2016. Her thesis explores issues of globalization, marketization, and the
institutional branding of South African universities. Her current research
interests include looking at security and language discourses in higher
education, student-focused translanguaging discourses from the perspectives
of systemic functional linguistics, sociolinguistics, and multisemiotic/
multimodality perspectives, among others. She is an emerging researcher in
critical food studies dealing with issues of ideological discursive strategies on
food branding, positioning, and consumption and their implications in the
African context.
Adrian Pablé is Associate Professor of English linguistics at the University of
Hong Kong. He is the Secretary of the International Association for the
Integrational Study of Language and Communication (IAISLC) and
series editor of the Routledge Advances in Communication and Linguistic
Theory. His scholarship focuses on the linguistic thought of Roy Harris,
integrational linguistics, and philosophy of language. He is the editor of the
volume Critical Humanist Perspectives (2017) and coauthor of the book
Signs, Meaning and Experience (with Christopher Hutton, 2015).
Dr. Robin Sabino is Professor Emerita at Auburn University. Research
interests include linguistic contact, variation, and change and the working
of language in the human brain. Published works include Languaging
without Languages: Beyond trans-, pluri-, metro-, and multi- (2018) and
Language Contact in the Danish West Indies: Giving Jack his jacket (2012).
A forthcoming chapter on the U.S. Islands will appear in the Handbook
of Caribbean Languages and Linguistics, vol 1. Honors include Auburn
Alumni Association’s 2014 Minority Achievement Award and Auburn
University’s Research Award in the Study of Diversity (2008).
Cristine Gorski Severo is Associate Professor at the Department of
Portuguese and at the Post Graduate Program of Linguistics, Federal
University of Santa Catarina (Brazil). Her research experience includes
comparative research of primary sources in Portuguese and Spanish
xii Contributors
language related to colonization and forms of resistance through
language. Her most recent books include Os jesuítas e as línguas [The
Jesuits and languages in Brazil-African colonial era] (2019) and Language
planning and policy: Ideologies, ethnicities and semiotic spaces of power
(2020), coedited with Ashraf Abdelhey and Sinfree B. Makoni.
Preface

Linguistics and the Moral Compass

South and North are points on an ideological compass showing who have
been underdogs in science and culture and who the self-proclaimed and self-
perpetuating top dogs. The old East-West compass stopped working when
Russia, Eastern Europe, and (arguably) China and India ceded underdog
status to Africa, Southeast Asia, and much of South America. Such outposts
of the Global North as Australia and New Zealand contain a strong
Southern core; but then throughout the North runs a Southern stratum,
wherever there is oppression rooted in disparity. It is all around us,
including in our universities, where it is at last starting to shed its cloak of
invisibility.
Other than mining it for data, linguistics has remained blind to the Global
South more persistently than have contiguous fields such as anthropology,
geography, and literary and cultural studies. Since the nineteenth century,
linguists have sought to align themselves with the sciences and to reap the
cultural prestige and financial support this brings. The physical sciences
have been especially resistant to suggestions that an ideological dimension
belies their self-conception as realms of pure observation and reason.
Linguists want to eat their cake and have it, proclaiming their scientific
purity along with what they see as the inherently liberating effect of their
doctrine that all languages and dialects are equal from a structural point of
view. Believing their hands to be already clean, they are disinclined to hear
critiques of their theories or methods as being in need of decolonizing.
This is less true of applied linguistics, which has been in an internal
critique mode since Robert Phillipson’s Linguistic Imperialism (1992), and
lately has seen major steps forward, for instance with Allison Phipps’s
Decolonising Multilingualism (2019), and now a suite of books written or
organized by Sinfree B. Makoni and his collaborators. In the present
volume, all the authors have responded to the editors’ invitation to reflect on
how their particular contributions connect with applied concerns.
It is however with a theoretical school that this book seeks to build a
bridge to Southern Theory. Integrationism, although grounded in Northern
thinking, is not a linguistics but an anti-linguistics. This book is the fruit of
xiv Preface
an intuition that Southern Theory and Integrationism have an affinity in
what they oppose. Testing this affinity brings to light characteristics of each
theory that have not been obvious, for instance, the focus of Integrationism
on the individual, as noted by some of the contributors here. It rings true:
but it was long masked by the Integrationist insistence that communication
needs to define the scope of study.
Communication in its usual sense requires at least two people having an
exchange of some sort, which involves not just production but inter-
pretation. Making communication the basis of Integrationism seemed to
set the theory in contrast to the individualism of mainstream linguistics,
embodied for the last half century in Chomsky’s “idealised native speaker-
listener”. Gradually, however, Integrationists would come to define
communication as including “all processes in which human activities are
contextually integrated by means of signs” (Roy Harris, Signs, Language
and Communication, 1996). Now the exchange – the communication in the
everyday sense – becomes optional, accidental rather than essential, to put it
in terms of classical Northern logic.
It is good to see Integrationists acknowledge the inherent individualism,
prompted in part by recognizing the much more profound distributionalism
that characterizes Southern Theory and to set as a future aim to pass beyond
it. Amongst the theories’ other differences which emerge in the pages that
follow, the “adultocentrism” of Integrationism is a less daunting obstacle to
the desired meeting of minds, although its “humanism”, in contrast with the
posthumanism of those Southern Theorists who extend agency to things, is a
still greater one.
Integrationism and Southern Theory bring complementary benefits to the
table. Integrationism was based on a mapping of the holes in the cheese of
linguistic theory, historical and contemporary; its force has always been
intellectual rather than ethical or moral. This is not to deny that it has been
usefully applied to ethical matters, for instance in Deborah Cameron’s work
in the linguistics of gender, or that Southern Theorists have mustered strong
intellectual arguments for their rejection of traditional Northern intellectual
argumentation. But Integrationism has cohesion to spare, which Southern
Theory, in its vast expanse, could do worse than to acquire some of in
exchange for helping to bring Integrationists in from the academic cold, now
that decolonizing the curriculum tops the academic agenda.
When some of the contributors to this volume claim that Integrationism is
non-Eurocentric, one wonders whether that entails a threshold low enough
for most theories with aspirations to universal application to pass. When I
arrived at the University of Hong Kong to succeed Roy Harris, the founder
of Integrationism, as Professor of English Language and Linguistics, on the
curriculum for all first-year students in our department was On Liberty by
John Stuart Mill; Harris had made it mandatory in the wake of the
Tiananmen Square massacre and the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. He
was unflinching in his belief that what Mill proclaims is universal in
 Preface xv
application, not specific to European cultures, in the face of a fierce rhetoric
of “Asian values” that portrayed On Liberty as a neo-colonialist text.
He was right about this, in my view, and the obstinacy of his political and
moral stance on the power of the state was brave. Ironically, the same
obstinacy exercised over his theory of communication imposed certain
strictures on the liberty of those who were drawn to follow it. Still, Harris’s
was such a lone voice of dissent against a linguistics establishment which
demanded adhesion to its dogmas that his determination to keep the inte-
grationist critique unified is understandable. His treatment of “folk”
conceptions implied a similar homogeneity, noting repeatedly that, whilst
everyone’s experience as a communicator qualifies them to have an opinion
about language, not all opinions are valid. It is less a contradiction than a
paradox.
Southern Theory demands diversity at the conceptual, theoretical, and
methodological levels, and not just in the treatment of communicative-
semiotic activity. There is perhaps a certain paradox in the desire of scholars
to band together as Southern Theorists or Integrationists, to strengthen their
individual voices through an identity generated by their difference from the
Global North or mainstream linguistics. In calling this a paradox, I do not
mean that it is a weakness. On the contrary, it is the source of a creative
tension that is never going to be resolved and should be acknowledged
rather than ignored. Indeed, it should be embraced.
This book launches what one hopes will be an ongoing search for a hybrid
space in which Integrationists and Southern Theorists can collaborate, each
tempering such orthodoxies as they may have inherited, remembering that
hybrids are stronger than the strains that give rise to them. Latin hybrida,
with its origins in the outrage of Greek hubris, denoted amongst other things
the child of a free citizen and a slave. If Integrationism has sometimes
seemed enslaved to its dogma, Southern Theory has developed in the sort of
freedom that can make it harder to find a steady way forward. Their
offspring shows promise of inheriting enough of the strengths of each to
supply the clear direction and creative scope that applied linguists in
particular hope to find in any novel approach, whatever its compass setting.
John E. Joseph
University of Edinburgh
Introduction: Introducing integrational
linguistics
Sinfree B. Makoni, Deryn P. Verity,
and Anna Kaiper-Marquez

This book comprises eleven papers, most of which were originally presented
at the Seventh International Conference of the International Association for
the Integrational Study of Language and Communication (September 1–2,
2019). The conference was hosted by the Department of Applied Linguistics
and the African Studies Program on the campus of The Pennsylvania State
University, in State College, Pennsylvania, USA. The main objective of the
conference was to explore the “emerging tensions and complementarities
between Integrational Linguistics and other philosophies of language and
their implications for Linguistic Theory and Applied Linguistics”, and led to
the formation of this book. The final chapter by Robin Sabino and the
foreword by John Joseph were commissioned especially for this volume. In
this book, we subject to critical scrutiny core concepts of Integrational
Linguistics through the prism of Southern Epistemologies, thereby com-
plementing the internal debates about the relevance and status of dialogic,
distributed, and ecological-enactive approaches currently taking place
within Integrational Linguistics.
Southern Epistemologies emerge from the experiences of colonization and
are empowered by their moral arguments against colonization. Colonialism
was characterized by acts of “linguistic appropriation, description, and in-
visibilization (that) were a constitutive feature of this epistemicide” (Kerfoot
& Hylltenstam, 2017, p. 2). Epistemicide is part of the “grand erasure of
experiences” of people from the Global South (Connell, 2007). The ex-
periences of people from the Global South are terra firma upon which
Southern Epistemologies are built. The term Global South has a number of
different meanings. In Santos’ (2007) work, it suggests a type of struggle,
and particularly when used with Southern Epistemologies, it may be used to
refer to alternative epistemologies and a “symbolic enlargement of knowl-
edge, practices, and agents in order to identify therein the tendencies of the
future” (Santos, 2016, p. 181). The South is therefore a “position, a politics”
(Shepherd, 2002, p. 81).
Our argument and advocacy for Southern Epistemologies should not be
construed to mean that it is either the only way or the single best way to
theorize conditions about inequality. It is a reflection of our awareness that
2 Makoni, Verity, Kaiper-Marquez
there are different ways of theorizing these inequalities that have different
consequences for what we find, understand, and convey to others. Our
objective here is to seek ways of expanding the analytical repertoires of
language scholarship by drawing on Southern thought in combination with
Integrational Linguistics wherever feasible. An applied linguistics under-
written by epistemologies of the South has to be grounded in concepts that
expand the repertoires of social emancipation.
In Southern Epistemologies, we seek to move beyond Northern folklin-
guistic categories to include the Global South as a rich, diverse, constantly
shifting, and open field of radically different metalinguistic discourses. For
us, it is not a question of “world views based on language, but of views of
language based on world views” (Pennycook & Makoni, 2020, p. 114).
Having said this, some of the folklinguistic categories are controversial. For
example, the indigenous is controversial in Francophone Africa and some
scholars prefer the term endogeneity instead (Ela, 1998; Hountodji, 1995;
Makoni & Meinhof, 2004). Other terms that are widely used but have been
subjected to criticism recently are ubuntu (I am human because you are
human too) and buen vivir (living well, collective well-being). Walsh (2010)
argues that the use of buen vivir does not necessarily facilitate a shift toward
sustainable forms of development. Tomaselli (2018) articulates a similar
trenchant critique of the African philosophy of ubuntu when he notes:

The populist and pervasive mythologizing discourses of African values

ubuntu and communitarianism for example, are promoted as benign but
they often conceal regressive patriarchal, classist tendencies that, under
specific conditions, result in authoritarianism. (p. ix)

Drawing from these conversations, this book marks an important milestone

in the development of Integrational Linguistics and Southern Theories.
It initiates an important dialog – the first of its kind, to the best of our
knowledge – between scholars formally trained from an Integrational
Linguistics background and decolonial scholars interested in the develop-
ment of Southern Epistemologies who are exploring the relevance of
Integrational Linguistics to decolonial scholarship. The objective of the
book is to initiate a conversation on how Integrational Linguistics can
contribute toward enhancing the development of a viable decolonized so-
ciolinguistics. As Bade (this volume) contends, “Southern Theory arises
from the experience of colonization and is both oriented, empowered, and
limited by its moral argument with the other world it opposes, the European
empires, and their successors in political regimes and mentality” (p. 19). The
goal of Southern Epistemologies is, in origin, an attempt to help realize
social justice both in the Global South and geographical North. Even
though Southern Epistemologies are relevant to the geographical North,
issues such as social justice, citizenship, and rights might mean different
things in the Global South than in the geographical North.
 Introduction 3
The final chapter by Sabino makes an important contribution to this
volume specifically and to Integrational Linguistics. Sabino has worked
on issues about language ideology and not Integrational Linguistics. She
considers the similarities and differences between Integrational Linguistics
and her approach to human languaging, drawing on her definitions about
languaging, entrenchment, conventionalization, vernacularization, con-
tinually emerging systems, and the A-curve. So the concluding chapter is an
account of what Integrational Linguistics looks like from a language ideo-
logical perspective which is amenable to Southern Epistemological analysis.
The book has a unique format. In addition to the individual chapters,
each contributor was asked to address the following three questions:

1. What specific connections can you make between the ideas in your
paper and the issues of concern in other areas of Applied Linguistics
(such as language teaching, second language acquisition, language
policy, and Southern Epistemologies, for example)? How would you
formulate and explain these connections to someone who works in these
areas?
2. After you wrote your paper, presented it at the conference, and spent a
few days in conversation with other attendees, what themes or ideas in
your paper became clearer to you, or perhaps less clear? In other words,
how did being at the conference change your own understanding of
Integrational Linguistics and where your paper fits in to it?
3. In what ways does the main Integrationist Linguistics theme or topic
discussed in your paper connect to the future of the field (future
readership, future modes of communication, future collaborative
conferences, the future of linguistics, etc.)?

Responses to these questions appear at the end of each chapter to give

readers a better understanding of the main issues that prompted each con-
tributor’s writing. We as editors felt that this was important to better inform
readers who might be new to or interested in further exploring Integrational
linguistics. Moreover, by including not only authors’ main chapters but also
their responses to these questions, we seek to disrupt more traditional
handbooks that do not allow authors’ voices to occur in multiple forums
and formats.

Objectives of Integrational Linguistics

Integrational Linguistics is basically concerned with issues about commu-
nication rather than language or languages. It is linked to the intellectual
beliefs and the scholarship of Roy Harris (1931–2015) who believed com-
munication was of primary importance because Homo sapiens were
Homocommunicators. For Harris, there could not be a separate scientific
study of language. However, while Harris is the originator of the field, as the
4 Makoni, Verity, Kaiper-Marquez
present volume indicates, work in Integrational Linguistics is being taken up
in different regions across the world by scholars with a diverse range of
interests. In this book, Integrational Linguistics is explored by decolonial
scholars.
Briefly, Integrational Linguistics (Harris, 1981, 1996) rejects the theo-
retical assumptions of orthodox linguistics. These assumptions Harris
termed “mythical” on the grounds that they decontextualize communica-
tion by postulating the existence of an abstract system (“the language”)
which enables the speaker/writer to transfer thoughts to the mind of the
hearer/reader. He referred to the two fallacies of the “fixed code” and
“telementation” (thought transfer) as the “language myth”. The focus in
Integrational Linguistics is on human activities that are contextually in-
tegrated by means of signs of various kinds, and no absolute distinction
between “linguistic” and “nonlinguistic” activities is accepted. From an
Integrational Linguistic perspective, there are no signs which exist in-
dependently of communicational activities in the here and now. It is not
feasible to argue for the existence of a sign outside its communicational
role in an activity.
Another approach to language which Integrational Linguistics is critical
of is what Harris referred to as “segregationism”. Segregationism is an as-
sumption that languages constitute a distinct field of academic study with
experts in the various subfields (Pablé, 2019, p. 1) and that language is best
studied by being broken down into a hierarchy of levels and units of analysis
such as phonology, morphology, syntax, pragmatics, etc. The discipline
of linguistics can also be distinguished from other disciplines such as psy-
chology, anthropology, sociology, and cultural studies.
There is an underlying ambiguity in the objectives of Integrational
Linguistics. It is not self-evident whether its main objective is to “de-
mythologize the academic discipline of linguistics and the Western tradition
on which it draws, or whether the goal is a radical demythologization of
Western society’s metalinguistic beliefs” (Hutton, this volume, p. 50). A
radical demythologization of “metadiscursive regimes” is necessary in de-
colonial sociolinguistics because race and racial hierarchies were critically
important principles in the organization of nineteenth-century comparative
philology and dialectology. The legacy of the racial hierarchies is still self-
evident in contemporary sociolinguistics and manifests itself in some pop-
ular views about language. The colonial patterns of representation of
speech– particularly African speech– involved, among other things, the
process of connecting linguistic material with the sociobiological indexicality
of race, family relations, and sociopolitical relations. For example, the idea
of Bantu languages as a “family” is not an objective reality that predated the
imposition of Western frames of linguistics and epistemology of Africa
(Abdelhay et al., 2020). A “heteronormative” comprehension of “family”
also involves the notion of hierarchy, which is why we can envision the
operation of power through an understanding of family relations.
 Introduction 5
The important issue in a decolonization of scholarship should not ne-
cessarily be restricted to the support of indigenous languages (however
desirable that may be), but rather, the development of alternative ways of
reflecting upon the language frameworks that are deployed in an organi-
zation of the linguistic landscape. What is required is a demythologization
of scholarly and popular “metadiscursive regimes” and a development of
alternative epistemologies and ontologies that take into account the degree
to which race is a critical part of the intellectual history of linguistics in
colonial and postcolonial linguistics.
As Bade argues in this volume (p. 20), “The myths of the colonizers
prevented them from ever encountering the realities of the ‘Orient’; the
colonizers (and their descendants) almost always everywhere see only their
myths”. In Bantu languages, a demythologization of metalinguistic beliefs
about language is necessary because cultural stories – theology, fantasy, and
fiction, for instance – mutually reinforce each other, a correspondence which
has implications on the construction and representation of indigenous
languages in colonial and postcolonial contexts. The classification and ca-
tegorization of indigenous languages is a statement of power based on race
and heteronormative relations. Demythologization should critically examine
and resist the tendency to “overextend biological metaphors” which re-
inforce racial and genetic classifications of language (Bongfolio, 2013),
mother tongue, native speakers, etc.
In spite of this ambiguity about the objectives of Integrational Linguistics
(see Hutton, this volume), we explore how Integrational Linguistics can be
mobilized as a “positive counter-discourse” (Pablé, this volume, p. 32) and
as an analytical framework in the service of the advancement of Southern
Theories, in spite of the Northernness of Integrational Linguistics (Fang,
this volume; Pennycook & Makoni, 2020). Southern Epistemologies do not
seek to delink from scholarship of the Global North but to put some aspects
of scholarship of the Global North, such as Integrational Linguistics, into
the global project of social justice in Southern Epistemologies.
Southern Epistemologies seek to advocate justice through advocacy of
language; hence, the importance of language policy and planning, minority
language movement, and language rights scholarship in the construction
of Southern Epistemologies. There is a potential tension, however, between
how the notion of “language” is framed in Integrational Linguistics and
how it is framed in advocacy work in Southern Epistemologies, language
policy and planning, and research into endangered languages. Southern
Epistemologies, like other “politically inflected work” (Hutton, 2011,
p. 503) exhibit a tendency to “reify” language and “treat” languages as
“autonomous” and “well-defined entities” (Pablé & Hutton, 2015, p. 32).
This provides stable systems of representation – a philosophical practice
which Integrational Linguistics rejects as segregationist because it is based
on a “language myth”. Southern Epistemologies accept that, when using
Integrational Linguistics, even adopting a segregationist perspective to
6 Makoni, Verity, Kaiper-Marquez
language may render it feasible to effect socially transformative functions.
In other words, the nature of the relationship between segregationist and
Integrationist approaches to language and language politics is extremely
complicated (see Hutton, this volume).
Both Southern Epistemologies and Integrational Linguistics advocate a
holistic approach to language, but Southern Theories adopt a much more
expansive view of language than Integrational Linguistics. In Southern
Epistemologies, language is not separated and cannot be distinguished
from other aspects of an individual’s life, such as their spirituality, because
“language is life” and “life is language” (Severo & Makoni, 2021).
Furthermore, songs and singing are part of the ontologies of language (see
Severo & Makoni, this volume).
Integrational Linguistics is lay-oriented. It does not recognize the legiti-
macy of orthodox linguistics. As Harris (1981) says,

A linguist theorist speaks with no greater authority and insight about

language than a baker or bus conductor. I doubt whether it is possible
to become a linguist theorist of any status without reminding oneself
constantly of that fact. (p. 237)

The proposition that the authority of the everyday language user is no

different from that of the linguist has a positive resonance in decolonial
contexts in which language expertise may historically have been construed to
reside with educated outsiders.
Integrational Linguistics’ lay-oriented nature is an attractive proposition
to Southern Epistemologies because it is anti-elitist and antiestablishment.
It seeks to replace the authority of linguistic science with that of a speaker
who has something to say, to someone, at a given time, in a specific con-
text. This lay-oriented focus is also consistent with the efforts by Southern
Epistemologies to be based on many sites and to represent a multiplicity of
social, ethnic, and racial experiences (Connell, 2007), both of which are
relevant to a democratizing language scholarship consistent with Southern
Theories. “Integrationism is lay-oriented, in the sense that it rejects any
distinction between what one might term ‘everyday’ views about language
and the views of specialists in academic linguists” (Pablé & Hutton,
2015, p. 44).
In Integrational Linguistics, an individual’s unique experiences are the
terra firma upon which reflections about language must be built, and since
we have diverse experiences of language, the diversity has to be built into our
language analysis. In his novel Mongolia, the Brazilian writer Bernardo
Carvalho juxtaposed the travel diaries of a Brazilian photographer who had
disappeared in Mongolia with the notebook of a Brazilian diplomat sent
to track him down. “The photographer had responded to each person with
delight, surprise, and keen interest. The diplomat, following the route in-
dicated in the diary, records his suspicious, hostile disdain for all that he
 Introduction 7
encountered along the same route” (Bade, this volume, p. 18). The world of
analysis of Southern Epistemologies should grow larger with each socio-
linguistic encounter. Southern Epistemologies follow the orientation of the
photographer more than that of the diplomat, if we use the fictional char-
acters in Carvalho’s novel. Southern Epistemologies seek to be alive to
“differences, and are keenly interested in the details” (p. 18). In Southern
Epistemologies, there are two perspectives about language: language as mass
and language as count. Diversity and pluralization occur not only in the
language as count, as is the case in most accounts of multilingualism, but
diversity is also evident in the notion of language as mass (Pennycook
& Makoni, 2020). Ontologically, we are therefore positing that our views
about language should also be pluralizable.
Many scholars have pointed out the extent to which the Western academy
and indeed non-Western universities are dominated by Eurocentrism
(Pennycook & Makoni, 2020; Fang, this volume; Cupples & Grosfoguel,
2019). Bhambra et al. (2018) define Eurocentrism as the philosophical as-
sumption that ideas which should govern scholarship are those that developed
endogenously within the cultural-geographical sphere of Europe. One of the
ways in which academics subvert Eurocentrism is for scholars to organize
themselves as explicitly political actors versus thinkers, whose work may
contribute to one another, or another political movement or debate. Mignolo
and Walsh (2018) argue that the time has arrived to challenge the idea that
there is one truth and one law which can capture all human behavior.
Eurocentrism is the dominant philosophy underpinning the Western
academy. It is founded on assumptions that the truth generated in one part
of the world is necessarily true and valid in all parts of the world. Southern
Epistemologies are adamant that the only truth that is universal is the truth
of complexity, and reality is always much more than it appears. As Santos
(2016) underscores over and over again with various phrases, “the Western
understanding of the world is as important as it is partial” (p. 263). While,
on the one hand, Southern Epistemologies are critical of Eurocentrism, they
are also quick to point out the irony that Eurocentrism and the hegemony
of the Western academy is facilitated by the language myth (a myth which
Southern Epistemologies mobilize in language policy and planning and
minority language movements in support of social justice) because
“[v]irtually every discourse in Western academia, if Integrationists are right,
is to some degree based on assumptions derived from the language myth”
(Harris, 1981, p. vii) (in this case, Southern Epistemologies believe you can
use the “Master’s tools to destroy the Master’s House”). In spite of the
argument that in some instances Southern Epistemologies support the
idea of a language myth, particularly in contexts of language advocacy,
Integrational Linguistics is critical of the strong commitment of Western
sociolinguistics to a linguistic ideology of the existence of separate and
identifiable languages. Southern Epistemologies are critical of approaches
to multilingualism which are predicated upon segregationist views of the
8 Makoni, Verity, Kaiper-Marquez
existence of “named” languages because they do not move discussions
forward about multilingualism beyond “plural monolingualism” (Makoni,
1998). Both Integrational Linguistics and Southern Epistemologies, if
they are critical of the notion of language which permeates the Western
academy, will be skeptical of the trumpeted discovery of multilingualism in
the Western academy which, as Heugh and Stroud (2019) point out, scholars
in the Global South have been writing about: “Northern debates that
receive traction appear to focus on recent ‘re-awakenings’ in Europe and
North America that mis-remember southern experiences of linguistic
diversity” (p. 1).
Southern epistemologies and indigenous ontologies do not constitute a
fixed body of knowledge, but rather, an emergent set of possibilities (Severo
& Makoni, 2021). Interest in the Global South and Southern Epistemologies
is occurring at the same time that there is a decolonial turn in knowledge
production. In this volume we explore to what extent Integrational
Linguistics may be used to contribute toward a decolonization of language
scholarship.

Integrational Linguistic perspectives on communication

Even though Integrational Linguistics is a critique of the Western gram-
matical tradition, it is primarily about communication and not language.
How is communication framed in Integrational Linguistics? Even though
Integrational Linguistics is a critique of the Western grammatical tradition,
it is part of the scholarship of the Global North. It is only recently that
Integrational Linguistics has begun to be extended to the Global South, and
in colonial and postcolonial contexts in southern Africa and colonial Brazil
(Makoni, 2011). The main question that this volume addresses is the extent
to which a philosophical approach to language such as Integrational
Linguistics is consistent with the objectives of the Southern Epistemologies
and decolonial scholarship.
According to Pablé (2019, this volume), Integrational Linguistics is not
“ethnocentric”. It is semiological in nature because it encompasses processes
in which human activities are contextually integrated by means of signs. In a
humanistic critique of modern linguistics, individuals are understood as
agents who create and recreate signs, situated within the flow of time and
against a background of contingency and indeterminacy. As Pablé & Hutton
(2015) note, “to communicate is to create but against a background of
unknowability and lack of transparency, to understand is to situate events
objects, utterances, texts, signs etc. within our own understandings of the
points of view of others” (p. 10). Formalist linguistics posits a model of
structure minus the self and agency, whereas Integrational Linguistics ar-
gues for self-agency without structure.
Communication starts from the notion of the active sign-making agent.
It is an active process, irrespective of who is playing the role of speaker,
 Introduction 9
listener, reader, or writer. Communication according to Integrational
Linguistics is “me” oriented which means I can always reinterpret what has
been said; it is radically open. From this view, Southern Epistemologies may
endorse the idea of communication as an active process, and as being “me”
oriented. The disagreement lies in what “me” stands for ontologically when
used in Southern Epistemologies.
The idea of communication as an active sign-making process can be ex-
panded in Southern Epistemologies through the notion of “System D” as a
metaphor for language (Makoni, 2020). “System D” is a way of capturing
the nature and use of language which occurs in the buying and selling in the
midst of a traffic jam, an improvised boat, at mobile street kiosks, or on a
blanket on a side walk. “System D” entails an integration of knowledge and
social action.
The term “System D” is based on the French colonial word débrouillardise,
which is meant to capture notions of self-reliance and creativity. “System D”
leaves us with something like a color wheel with one idiolect blending
seamlessly into the next. It values what a language user can accomplish, in-
stead of judging it against a standard of correctness. Framing language
through “System D” renders it feasible to undo some of the colonial,
monolingual, multilingualism approaches to language and standardized lan-
guage varieties. Southern Epistemologies are not opposed to the idea of a
standard language, but to the sociolinguistic mechanisms through which a
standard language variety is created.
All forms of communication, when seen from an Integrational Linguistics
perspective, demand continuously monitored creative activity. Even the
most trivial act of communication is subject to this requirement.
Communication is not a closed process of automatic “transmission” of given
signs or messages from one person’s mind to another, but of setting up
conditions which allow all parties involved the free construction of possible
interpretations, depending on the context. These contextual possibilities are
intrinsically ongoing and open-ended. This open-endedness outstrips and
defies any rules or codes that participants may think can be imposed, either
in advance or retrospectively.
Southern Theorists (e.g., Covarrubias, 2007; Gunrante, 2009; Yoshitaka,
2017) and other scholars from the Global South have drawn attention to the
problematic and culturally biased nature of the notion of communication in
Western scholarship (see Pablé, this volume). For Southern scholars, even
though it is “communication” and not “language” which should form the
basis of the analytical enterprise in a decolonized sociolinguistics – a posi-
tion which Integrational Linguistics may endorse – there may be differences
in how communication is conceptualized between Integrational Linguistics
and Southern Epistemologies. While in Integrational Linguistics, a sign may
not mean the same thing to two different people (Pablé, 2019), it is debatable
whether Southern Epistemologies would be willing to go so far as to
argue the same thing. The difference between Integrational Linguistics and
10 Makoni, Verity, Kaiper-Marquez
Southern Epistemologies on the notion of a sign is one of degree and not of
kind. For Integrational Linguistics, communication is the cornerstone of
human, social, and political life. It defies efforts to be mechanically and/or
pragmatically decoded and categorized. Southern Theorists view of com-
munication is “adultocentric” because the initial account of language and
communication is socio-politically motivated. Integrational Linguistics
seems to equivocate on the topic as reflected in the reaction by Pablé (this
volume) to Berger’s (2011) “adultocentric” critique leveled at Integrational
Linguistics.
Pennycook and Makoni (2020), in a position which is different from that
of Integrational Linguistics, extend the notion of agency to inanimate ob-
jects, thus blurring distinctions between humans and nonhumans. According
to Pennycook and Makoni (2020), the African “talking drums” practice of
sending messages can be construed as agentive. African drums in themselves,
and also when used to transmit messages, are agentive particularly when
they imitate speech. Communication in Southern Epistemologies has to be
framed in at least two ways intersemiotically and transmodally (Pennycook
& Makoni, 2020) and requires a broader understanding in which the ex-
istence of communication is projected as not only existing between humans
but also between humans and nonhumans. Even if interspecies commu-
nication is conceptually feasible, communicational universes do not match
across species because of similar anatomical traits. As Pablé writes
“Infrastructures are discontinuous and species specific” (current volume,
p. 30). This draws on and further adapts Hauck and Hank’s contention that
if language has multiple natures, it is logical to expect that communication
may have “multiple natures” as well (as cited in Pablé, this volume, p. 32).

Parameters in Communication
According to Harris, there are three main factors which constrain human
communication: (1) biomechanical, (2) circumstantial, and (3) macrosocial
(Pablé & Hutton, 2015). “Biomechanical factors relate to the physical and
mental capacities of the human being. Macrosocial factors relate to practices
established in some group within the community and circumstantial factors
relate to the specifics of particular situations” (Harris, 1998, p. 29, as cited in
Pablé & Hutton, 2015, p. 15). Southern Epistemologies are not only interested
in exploring the impact of the different parameters that constrain the nature
of communication but also in investigating the politics of the parameters.
Thus, the issue for Southern Epistemologies is not how many parameters
there are or their relationship with each other – in spite of the importance of
these factors – but the political implications of such parameters.
Inspired by Deleuze and Guattari (2011), Deumert (2019) advances a
“rhizomatic” interpretation. “The Mangrove or Moving with and beyond
the Rhizome” encourages us to look at language and communication dif-
ferently. In this metaphor, languages emerge not only as complex entangled
 Introduction 11
practices of meaning-making but also as poetic futures, and as ambivalent
formations that exist on the border of the binary.
A further extension of this rhizomatic thinking can be attributed to Bou
Ayash (2019), who proposes the use of “entangled electricity cables” as a
way of framing language practices and communication. The metaphor of
“rhizomes, with multiple roots and indistinguishable branches”, suggests a
different starting point for learning and proficiency. A rhizome metaphor
favors an activity orientation of meaning-making and ontologies.
Following Santos’ call for a sociology of absences and emergences (2007),
we instigate a comparable call for alternative conceptions of language which
draw from a combination of Integrational Linguistics and Southern
Epistemologies as a way of challenging what Ngũgĩ wa Thiongʼo calls the
colonization of the mind and Santos (2016) labels epistemicide.

Chapter summaries
Summaries of the chapters in the book and interconnections between them
are presented below.
Chapter One: David Bade
Edward said, Roy asked, and the peasant responded: Reflections on
peasants, popular culture, and intellectuals
This chapter is framed in a manner to capture the connections between
Bade’s personal life and analytical experiences. In a sense, it can be un-
derstood as an auto-ethnographical account of Integrational Linguistics.
Bade makes the general argument that Southern Theories, like other the-
ories, begin “somewhere with someone in the interests of some project”.
For Bade, the quest for Southern Theories arises from a strong belief that
prevailing theories do not successfully account for the experiences of those
who advocate for Southern Theories. Southern Theories, according to
Bade, is “empowered” and paradoxically “limited” by the power of the
moral argument with the world that it opposes.
Chapter Two: Adrian Pablé
Three critical perspectives on the ontology of “language”
If, in the first chapter, Bade discusses issues about Southern Theories at a broad
and general level in an autobiographical form, in the next chapter Adrian Pablé
narrows down the discussion to more specific ontological matters. Using
Pennycook and Makoni’s (2020) Innovations and Challenges in Applied Linguistics
from the Global South as a springboard, Pablé argues that Integrationism and
Southern Theories are compatible, even though the former was not framed with
the explicit objective of addressing the sociopolitical concerns of the Global
South. Pablé illustrates how Integrationism can be used as a “positive counter-
discourse” to Western orthodox linguistics and that although Integrational
Linguistics does not have an explicit political agenda, it is compatible with
12 Makoni, Verity, Kaiper-Marquez
Southern Theories because both Integrationism and Southern Theories seek to
challenge prevailing linguistic orthodoxies. Pablé expands the argument made by
Pennycook and Makoni by maintaining that perhaps what is required is not an
expansion of existing analytical repertoires of language but, rather, an extension
of existing repertoires not of language but of communication. The expansion of
existing repertoires of communication, however, will entail the reformulation of
notions of communication so that the orientations toward communication are
not Anglocentric. Pablé identifies what he thinks might be a potential source of
tension in Southern Theories between “indigenous cosmovisions”, which em-
phasize issues related to social differences and posthumanism and downplay the
differences among humans and between humans and nonhumans. It is not clear,
however, at least at this moment, the extent to which Southern Epistemologies
can accommodate the tension (or contradiction) in both theory and practice
between “indigenous cosmovisions and posthumanism”.
Chapter Three: Christopher Hutton
Integrationism, individualism, and personalism: The politics of essentialism
If Pablé is interested in the ontologies of language, Hutton extends the ar-
gument by exploring the politics of ontologies of language.
Even though Integrationism, unlike Southern Theories, does not have an ex-
plicit political agenda, Hutton explores the nature of the relationship between
Integrationism and language politics. Hutton argues that Integrationism, unlike
Southern Theories, lacks an explicit politics of language at the macrosocial level.
Nevertheless, Integrationism’s “lay” orientation is predicated on a form of anti-
elitism, because the “only concept of language worth having”, according to the
Integrationist position, is that of the layperson. The lay-oriented nature of lan-
guage in Integrationism makes it compatible with the language politics of
Southern Theories. The critical argument that Integrationists make is that there is
a complex relationship between essentialization or de-essentialization and politics.
Hutton argues that there is no one-to-one relationship between essentialization or
de-essentialization and progressive politics. For example, essentialization may be
part of progressive politics in the advocacy of indigenous languages, whereas de-
essentialization may be part of retrogressive politics in the promotion of English.
Chapter Four: Peter E. Jones and Dorthe Duncker
A clash of linguistic philosophies? Charles Goodwin’s “co-operative action”:
An integrationist perspective
Jones and Duncker broaden the discussion about ontologies by analyzing
the tension between an Integrationist approach to Charles Goodwin and the
potential ethnocentric nature of universalist approaches to conversational
analysis.
Jones and Duncker cast a critical lens on Charles Goodwin’s “co-operative
action”. They argue that cooperative action is grounded both in its methodology
and analysis in a segregationist perspective toward language interaction. They
insist Goodwin’s cooperative interaction is grounded in the language myth.
 Introduction 13
Analytically, they illustrate the problematic nature of using transcriptions in
language analysis, particularly if one subscribes to a view of language as radi-
cally indeterminate further complicated by the lack of intrinsic structure of
language. They point out that any third-person analysis is reductionist. They
raise an important philosophical issue that is pertinent to this volume: the nature
of the relationship between Integrationism and Southern Theories. They are
ambivalent in their argumentation on this critical topic. On the one hand, they
insist that it is conceptually feasible for Integrationism to be used in the service
of the development of Southern Theories and decolonial sociolinguistics, even
though Integrationist Linguistics is grounded in Northern scholarship. On the
other hand, they call for careful thinking of the collaboration between
Integrationism and Southern Theories, given the fact that Integrationism may be
open to the critique that it is ethnocentric itself.
Chapter Five: Bassey E. Antia and Lynn Mafofo
Text annotations: Examining evidence for a multisemiotic instinct and the
intertextuality of the sign in a database of pristine self-directed communication
Antia and Mafofo extend the discussion of Integrationism to written texts.
They analyze the inscriptions in the margins of written texts used by stu-
dents. The advantage of their approach is that they explore the nature of the
complex relationships between Integrationism and other approaches to
language, such as visual semiotics and systemic functional grammars.
In their chapter, Antia and Mafofo direct their attention to the textual
analysis of annotations. The analysis of the annotations on these texts is
illuminating because they reflect a special type of communication. While
Jones and Duncker focus on other communication, Antia and Mafofo pay
much more intimate attention to self-communication. They adopt a holistic
approach to the analysis of self-communication that is conceptually eclectic
in bringing together a number of different analytical approaches: translin-
gualism, systemic functional analysis, and semiotic and visual analysis.
Antia and Mafofo also adopt another holistic approach by taking into ac-
count the different types of annotations, drawings, colorings, and comments
inserted. The inserted comments provide opportunities to recall fragments
and propositions in the text. The holistic approach to an analysis of the
annotated texts is relevant to other applied linguistic areas, such as reading.
Chapter Six: Xuan Fang
The semiological implications of knowledge-ideologies: A Harrisian perspective
While Anita and Mafofo’s emphasis is on written inscriptions of texts read
by students, Fang adopts a much broader view of Integrational Linguistics
by exploring the role of Eurocentrism in both Southern Theories and
Integrational Linguistics – an important topic given the Eurocentric nature
of the Western academy.
Fang explores how Southern Epistemologies can be used to challenge
Eurocentrism, which undergirds the nature of most contemporary universities.
14 Makoni, Verity, Kaiper-Marquez
Eurocentrism forms the basis of knowledge ideology in the academic world and,
linguistically, is predicated on the language myth. The main focus of Eurocentric
scholarship is the notion of universal truths. There are a number of different
types of universal truths. For Fang, however, the only truth that is relevant to
Southern Theorists is that Western theories can only partially capture the
complex realities of the globe. “The truth is always much more than it appears”.
Using Integrational Linguistics, Fang reframes in an innovative manner the
Global South as a “second-order abstraction” – a product of human commu-
nicational discourses. Following Pennycook and Makoni (2020), the Southern
epistemological critique that Fang adopts does not amount to a delinking of
Southern Theories from theories about language from the Global North but,
rather, is indicative of an awareness of the entanglement between the Global
North and Global South. Southern Theories and indeed Integrational
Linguistics may be influenced by the language myth and potential performative
self-contradiction, which, ironically, are the objects of their critique.
Chapter Seven: Kundai Chirindo
Rhetoric and integrationism: In search of rapprochement
Chirindo takes discussions about Integrational Linguistics in a different di-
rection. He analyzes and explores the role that the quest for a more nuanced
understanding of context in Integrational Linguistics might provide to research
in rhetoric studies. He draws his data from texts in Liberia. Chirindo poses two
related questions: (1) how much can Integrationism contribute to rhetorical
studies? and (2) what might rhetorical studies contribute toward our under-
standing of Integrational Linguistics? According to Chirindo, most rhetorical
studies have tended to adopt a segregationalist and telementational view of
language and rhetoric. Integrational Linguistics provides opportunities to si-
tuate rhetoric studies in context and to shift away from a telementational and
segregationalist view of language and a deterministic reading of texts and dis-
courses. Integrational Linguistics renders it important for rhetoric studies to
conceptualize communication as including all processes in which human ac-
tivities are contextually integrated by means of signs, irrespective of modality,
i.e., spoken or written. Rhetoric may enhance our understanding of
Integrational Linguistics if we treat rhetoric as communicational, a type of
discourse, or, to borrow from Harris, a second-order abstract.
Chapter Eight: Sinead Kwok
Integrationism and postcolonialism: Divergences or convergences? An in-
tegrational discussion on ethnocentricity and the (post)colonial translation myth

Kwok examines the tensions between Integrationism and Southern

Theories. If Chirindo was interested in colonial contexts, Kwok analyzes the
nature of the relationship between Integrationism and Southern Theories.
She explores the degree to which both Integrationism and Southern Theories
may allegedly be ethnocentric.
 Introduction 15
Kwok makes two sets of potentially contradictory arguments. She argues that
Integrational Linguistics and decolonial scholarship are compatible because they
both constitute challenges to orthodox scholarship. Nevertheless, there is one
major difference between Integrational Linguistics and postcolonialism. Kwok
argues that, whereas Integrational Linguistics is not ethnocentric, post-
colonialism is ethnocentric. Thus, a fruitful collaboration between the two ap-
proaches to language cannot be successfully carried out in a joint enterprise due
to these radical differences in how they orient toward ethnocentricity. Another
critical difference between the two is that, whereas Integrational Linguistics
seeks to establish a superordinate theory, postcolonial theory is concerned only
with local contexts.
Chapter Nine: Cristine Severo and Sinfree B. Makoni
Integrationism and the Global South: Songs as epistemic and ontological
frameworks in language studies
Severo and Makoni return to the issues about ontology but situate the re-
search within a particular ethnic group in Brazil. Unlike Pablé and to some
extent Hutton, they adopt a more holistic ontological approach
to language, arguing that songs and singing need to be integrated in our
understanding of the notion of language.
Severo and Makoni seek to expand the Integrationist view toward the epis-
temologies and ontologies of language. They argue that most of the analyses of
songs have been segregationalistic and have adopted a telementational view of
language that echoes colonial views about language as a fixed code. The au-
thors’ expansive view of language combines Integrational Linguistics with his-
torical sociolinguistics of the Global South. They contend that even though,
from an Integrationist perspective, the sign is universal as a feature of the ar-
chitecture of communication, the meanings of songs and how they are inter-
preted may be radically different among different ethnicities. The authors
illustrate the extent to which songs are constructed, inchoate, pluralistic, and
indeterminate in terms of both form and meaning, drawing on examples from
the Guarani indigenous group in Brazil.
Chapter Ten: Cory Juhl
Words and other currencies
Juhl focuses his attention on an analysis of semantics. He explores the ways
in which surrogational views of language have shaped studies in semantics
and how a different vision of semantics may emerge if we adopt an
Integrationist approach to it.
Juhl notes that Harris rejected a surrogational view of language that is pre-
dicated upon a “fixed-code” view. Harris argued that surrogationalist ap-
proaches to language with their “quasi-mechanistic models” of language are
inadequate and unsatisfactory because they do not capture individuals’ experi-
ences of language. Cory explores the implications of viewing naturalized se-
mantics through a non-surrogationalist view of language and examines the
16 Makoni, Verity, Kaiper-Marquez
implications of an Integrationist approach to language through an analysis of
currencies.
Chapter Eleven: Robin Sabino
Beyond IL from the perspective of Languaging without languages
In the final chapter, Sabino compares her approach to human languaging
with the one that forms the basis of Integrational Linguistics. She argues that
there are certain elements of the philosophy of language in Integrational
Linguistics that are compatible with her approach to human languaging. She
endorses the critique of languages as fixed and clearly delineated entities. She
also, like Integrationists, is critical of the telementation orientation toward
communication. There are, however, significant differences between her
position and Integrational Linguistics. She feels that the argument that each
interactional event is unique and cannot be repeated goes too far. She also has
a much more central role for idiolects than Integrational Linguistics does. Her
interest in the ideological underpinnings of theory formation makes her
position, to some extent, compatible with Southern Epistemologies.

References
Abdelhay, A., Makoni, S. & Severo, C. (2020). Language planning and policy: Ideologies,
ethnicities, and semiotic spaces of power. Cambridge Scholars Publishers.
Berger, L. (2011). Language and the ineffable. Lexington Books.
Bhambra, G., Gebrial, D. & Nisancioglu, K. (2018). Introduction: Decolonizing
the university? In Bhambra G., Gebrial D. & Nisancioglu K. (Eds.), Decolonizing
university (pp. 1–19). Pluto Press.
Bongfolio, T. P. (2013). The invention of the native speaker. Critical Multilingualism
Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1(2), 29–58.
Bou Ayash, N. (2019). Toward translingual realities in composition: (Re)working
local language representations and practices. Utah State University Press.
Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social
science. Polity.
Covarrubias, P. (2007). (Un)biased in Western theory: Generative silence in
American Indian communication. Communication Monographs, 74(2), 265–271.
Cupples, J. & Grosfoguel, R. (2019). Decolonization and feminisms in global teaching
and learning. London & New York: Routledge.
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (2011). The production of the new. London: Bloomsbury
Academic.
Deumert, A. (2019, September 27). The mangrove or moving with and beyond the rhizome.
https://www.diggitmagazine.com/column/mangrove-or-moving-and-beyond-rhizome
Ela, J. M. (1998). Innovations sociales et renaissance de l’ Afrique noire. Hartman.
Gunrante, S. (2009). Emerging global divides in media and communication theory:
European universalism and non-Western reactions. Asian Journal of Communication,
19(4), 366–383.
Harris, R. (1981). The language myth. Duckworth.
Harris, R. (1996). Signs of writing. Routledge.
Harris, R. (1998). Integrational linguistics: A first reader. Pergamon.
 Introduction 17
Heugh, K. & Stroud, C. (2019). Diversities, affinities and diasporas: A southern lens
and methodology for understanding multilingualisms. Current Issues in Language
Planning, 20, 1–15.
Hountodji, P. (1995). Producing knowledge in Africa today. African Studies Review,
38(3), 1–10.
Hutton, C. (2011). The politics of the language myth: Reflections on the writings
of Roy Harris. Language Sciences, 33(4), 503–510.
Kerfoot, C. & Hyltenstam, K. (2017). Entangled discourses: South‐North orders of
visibility. New York: Routledge.
Makoni, S. (1998). In the beginning was the missionaries’ word. The European in-
vention of African languages. In K. Prah (Ed.), Between extinction and distinction:
The harmonization and standardization of African languages (pp. 157–165). Wits
University Press.
Makoni, S. (2011). Sociolinguistics, colonial and postcolonial: An integrationist
perspective. In A. Pablé (Ed.), Critical humanist perspective: The integrational turn
in philosophy of language and communication (pp. 63–76). Routledge.
Makoni, S. (2020). Framing economies of language using system D and spontaneous or-
ders. In Blewett, K., Donahue, T. & Monroe, C. (Eds.), Expanding the universe of writing
studies higher education writing research (pp. 217-229). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Makoni, S. B. & Meinhof, U. (2004). Western perspectives in applied linguistics.
AILA Review, 17(1), 77–104.
Mignolo, W. & Walsh, D. (2018). On decoloniality: Concepts, analytics, praxis. Duke
University Press.
Ngũgĩ wa Thiongʼo. (1986). Decolonising the mind: The politics in African literature.
James Currey.
Pablé, A. (2019). Is a general non-ethnocentric theory of human communication
possible? An integrationist approach. Lingua, 230 102735.
Pablé, A. & Hutton, C. (2015). Signs, meaning and experience: Integrational ap-
proaches to linguistics and semiotics. DeGruyter Mouton.
Pennycook, A. & Makoni, S. (2020). Innovations and challenges in applied linguistics
from the Global South. Routledge.
Santos, B. De S. (2007). Another knowledge is possible: Beyond Northern Epistemologies.
London: Verso.
Santos, B. De S. (2016). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide.
Routledge.
Severo, C. & Makoni, S. (2021). Is a southern epistemological orientation to
applied linguistics possible and desirable. In Cunningham, C. & Hall, C. (Eds.),
Vulnerabilities, challenges and risks. Multilingual Matters.
Shepherd, N. (2002). Heading south, looking north. Archaeological Dialogues, 9(2),
74–82.
Tomaselli, T. (2018). Foreword: Implicit geographies. In Mutsvairo, B. (Ed), The
Palgrave handbook of media and communication research in Africa, (pp. v–ix).
Palgrave Publishers.
Yoshitaka, M. (2017). An Asiacentric reflection on Eurocentric bias in commu-
nication theory. Communication Monographs, 74(2), 272–278.
Walsh, C. (2010). Development as buen vivir institutional arrangements and deco-
lonial entanglements. Development, 53(1), 15–21.
Introduction: Introducing integrational linguistics
Abdelhay, A. , Makoni, S. & Severo, C. (2020). Language planning and policy: Ideologies,
ethnicities, and semiotic spaces of power. Cambridge Scholars Publishers.
Berger, L. (2011). Language and the ineffable. Lexington Books.
Bhambra, G. , Gebrial, D. & Nisancioglu, K. (2018). Introduction: Decolonizing the university? In
Bhambra G. , Gebrial D. & Nisancioglu K. (Eds.), Decolonizing university (pp. 119). Pluto Press.
Bongfolio, T. P. (2013). The invention of the native speaker. Critical Multilingualism Studies: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 1(2), 2958.
Bou Ayash, N. (2019). Toward translingual realities in composition: (Re)working local language
representations and practices. Utah State University Press.
Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social science.
Polity.
Covarrubias, P. (2007). (Un)biased in Western theory: Generative silence in American Indian
communication. Communication Monographs, 74(2), 265271.
Cupples, J. & Grosfoguel, R. (2019). Decolonization and feminisms in global teaching and
learning. London & New York: Routledge.
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (2011). The production of the new. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Deumert, A. (2019, September 27). The mangrove or moving with and beyond the rhizome .
https://www.diggitmagazine.com/column/mangrove-or-moving-and-beyond-rhizome
Ela, J. M. (1998). Innovations sociales et renaissance de l Afrique noire. Hartman.
Gunrante, S. (2009). Emerging global divides in media and communication theory: European
universalism and non-Western reactions. Asian Journal of Communication, 19(4), 366383.
Harris, R. (1981). The language myth. Duckworth.
Harris, R. (1996). Signs of writing. Routledge.
Harris, R. (1998). Integrational linguistics: A first reader. Pergamon.
17 Heugh, K. & Stroud, C. (2019). Diversities, affinities and diasporas: A southern lens and
methodology for understanding multilingualisms. Current Issues in Language Planning, 20, 115.
Hountodji, P. (1995). Producing knowledge in Africa today. African Studies Review, 38(3), 110.
Hutton, C. (2011). The politics of the language myth: Reflections on the writings of Roy Harris.
Language Sciences, 33(4), 503510.
Kerfoot, C. & Hyltenstam, K. (2017). Entangled discourses: SouthNorth orders of visibility. New
York: Routledge.
Makoni, S. (1998). In the beginning was the missionaries word. The European invention of
African languages. In K. Prah (Ed.), Between extinction and distinction: The harmonization and
standardization of African languages (pp. 157165). Wits University Press.
Makoni, S. (2011). Sociolinguistics, colonial and postcolonial: An integrationist perspective. In A.
Pabl (Ed.), Critical humanist perspective: The integrational turn in philosophy of language and
communication (pp. 6376). Routledge.
Makoni, S. (2020). Framing economies of language using system D and spontaneous orders. In
Blewett, K. , Donahue, T. & Monroe, C. (Eds.), Expanding the universe of writing studies higher
education writing research (pp. 217-229). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Makoni, S. B. & Meinhof, U. (2004). Western perspectives in applied linguistics. AILA Review,
17(1), 77104.
Mignolo, W. & Walsh, D. (2018). On decoloniality: Concepts, analytics, praxis. Duke University
Press.
Ngg wa Thiongo . (1986). Decolonising the mind: The politics in African literature. James
Currey.
Pabl, A. (2019). Is a general non-ethnocentric theory of human communication possible? An
integrationist approach. Lingua, 230 102735.
Pabl, A. & Hutton, C. (2015). Signs, meaning and experience: Integrational approaches to
linguistics and semiotics. DeGruyter Mouton.
Pennycook, A. & Makoni, S. (2020). Innovations and challenges in applied linguistics from the
Global South. Routledge.
Santos, B. De S. (2007). Another knowledge is possible: Beyond Northern Epistemologies.
London: Verso.
Santos, B. De S. (2016). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. Routledge.
Severo, C. & Makoni, S. (2021). Is a southern epistemological orientation to applied linguistics
possible and desirable. In Cunningham, C. & Hall, C. (Eds.), Vulnerabilities, challenges and
risks. Multilingual Matters.
Shepherd, N. (2002). Heading south, looking north. Archaeological Dialogues, 9(2), 7482.
Tomaselli, T. (2018). Foreword: Implicit geographies. In Mutsvairo, B. (Ed), The Palgrave
handbook of media and communication research in Africa, (pp. vix). Palgrave Publishers.
Yoshitaka, M. (2017). An Asiacentric reflection on Eurocentric bias in communication theory.
Communication Monographs, 74(2), 272278.
Walsh, C. (2010). Development as buen vivir institutional arrangements and decolonial
entanglements. Development, 53(1), 1521.

Edward said, Roy asked, and the peasant responded: Reflections on

peasants, popular culture, and intellectuals
Bacon, F. (1964). Temporis partus masculus. In B. Farrington , The philosophy of Francis
Bacon (pp. 6072). Liverpool University Press.
Bade, D. (2013). Imaginary travels in post-socialist Mongolia. Inner Asia, 15(1), 135164.
Carvalho, B. (2003).Monglia.So Paulo, Brazil:Companhia das Letras.
Charbonneau, B. (2019). Quatre tmoins de la libert: Rousseau, Montaigne, Berdiaev,
Dostoevski. R&N ditions.
Galileo G. (1960). On motion and on mechanics (Comprising De Motu (ca. 1590) translated with
introduction and notes by I.E. Drabkin and Le meccaniche (ca. 1600) translated with
introduction and notes by Stillman Drake). The University of Wisconsin Press.
Harris, R. (1990). The dialect myth. In J.A. Edmondson , C. Feagin & P. Mhlhusler (Eds.),
Development and diversity: Language variation across time and space: A Festschrift for
Charles-James N. Bailey (pp. 310). Summer Institute of Linguistics; University of Texas.
Hawking, S. (1988). A brief history of time. Bantam.
Hobbes, T. (1839). The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury ( William Molesworth ,
Ed.). John Bohn.
McCullers, C. (1942). A tree. A rock. A cloud. Harpers Bazaar, 76, 50, 9699.
Mendes-Flohr, P. (2007). Love, accusative and dative: Reflections on Leviticus 19:18. Syracuse
University Press.
Said, E. (2003). Orientalism. Penguin.

Three critical perspectives on the ontology of language

Berger, L. S. (2005). The unboundaried self: Putting the person back into the view from
nowhere. Trafford Publishing.
Berger, L. S. (2011). Language and the ineffable. Lexington Books.
Calame-Griaule, G. (1963). Ethnologie et langage: la Parole chez les Dogon. Gallimard.
Cornips, L. (2019). The final frontier: Non-human animals on the linguistic research agenda. In
J. Berns & E. Tribushinina (Eds.). Linguistics in the Netherlands 2019 (pp. 1319). John
Benjamins.
Covarrubias, P. (2007). (Un)Biased in Western theory: Generative silence in American Indian
communication. Communication Monographs, 74(2), 265271.
Craig, R. T. (2019). Welcome to the metamodel: A reply to Pabl. Empedocles, 10(1), 101108.
Goddard, C. (2009). The communication concept and the language concept in everyday
English. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 29(1), 1125.
Gunaratne, S. (2009). Emerging global divides in media and communication theory: European
universalism and non-Western reactions. Asian Journal of Communication, 19(4), 366383.
Harris, R. (1981). The language myth. Duckworth.
Harris, R. (1990). On folk and scientific linguistic beliefs. In L. S. Tsohatzidis (Ed.). Meanings
and prototypes (pp. 449464). Routledge.
Harris, R. (1996). Signs, language and communication. Routledge.
Harris, R. (1998). Introduction to integrational linguistics. Pergamon Press.
Harris, R. (2005). The semantics of science. Continuum Press.
Harris, R. (2006). Integrationist notes and papers 20032005. Tree Tongue.
Harris, R. & Hutton, C. (2007). Definition in theory and practice. Continuum Press.
Hauck, J. D. & Heurich, G. O. (2018). Language in the Amerindian imagination: An inquiry into
linguistic natures. Language & Communication, 63, 18.
Hutton, C. (2019). Integrationism and the self: Reflections on the legal personhood of animals.
Routledge.
Levisen, C. (2019). Biases we live by: Anglocentrism in linguistics and cognitive sciences.
Language Sciences 76. Article 101173.
45 Pabl, A. (2017). Secular humanist discourses on rationality. Explorations in the philosophy of
language and communication. In A. Pabl (Ed.). Critical humanist perspectives (pp. 1327).
Routledge.
Pabl, A. (2019). Is a general non-ethnocentric theory of human communication possible? An
integrationist approach. Lingua. International Review of General Linguistics, 230, 150159.
102735.
Pennycook, A. (2018). Posthumanist applied linguistics. Routledge.
Pennycook, A. & Makoni, S. (2019). Innovations and challenges in applied linguistics from the
Global South. Routledge.
Yoshitake, M. (2007). An Asiacentric reflection on Eurocentric bias in communication theory.
Communication Monographs, 74(2), 272278.

Integrationism, individualism, and personalism: The politics of

essentialism
Bauman, Z. (1987). Legislators and interpreters: On modernity, post-modernity, and
intellectuals. Cornell University Press.
Bauman, R. , & Briggs, C. (2003). Voices of modernity: Language ideologies and the politics of
inequality. Cambridge University Press.
Blommaert, J. , & Rampton, B. (2011). Language and superdiversity: A position paper. Working
Papers in Urban Language and Literacies 70. London: Tilburg University and Kings College.
Burke, K. (1945). A grammar of motives. Prentice-Hall.
Chirindo, K. (2016). Bantu sociolinguistics in Wangari Maathais peacebuilding rhetoric. Womens
Studies in Communication, 39, 442459.
Chomsky, N. (2007). Of minds and language. Biolinguistics, 1, 927.
Clark, A. , & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58, 719.
Cohen, M. , Royo, A. , & Noszlopy, L. (2007). Indonesian performing arts across borders.
Indonesia and the Malay World, 35, 17.
Davis, H. (2001). Words: An integrational approach. Routledge.
Dennett, D. (1991). Consciousness explained. Little, Brown.
Duncker, D. (2017). The notion of an integrated system. In A. Pabl (Ed.), Critical humanist
perspectives: The integrational turn in philosophy of language and communication (pp. 135153).
Routledge.
62 Duncker, D. (2019). The reflexivity of language and linguistic inquiry: Integrational linguistics
in practice. Routledge.
Errington, J. (2001). Colonial linguistics. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 1939.
Fichte, J. (1808). Reden an die deutsche Nation. Realschulbuchhandlung.
Fontaine, L. S. (2018). Our languages are sacred: Finding constitutional space for Aboriginal
language rights [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Manitoba Winnipeg]. Retrieved from
https://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca.
Gaudry, A. J. P. (2011). Insurgent research. Wicazo Sa Review, 26, 113136.
Giddens, A. (1991). The consequences of modernity. Polity Press.
Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor.
Graziano M. (2019). Rethinking consciousness: A scientific theory of subjective experience.
Norton.
Harris, R. (1980). The language makers. Duckworth.
Harris, R. (1981). The language myth. Duckworth.
Harris, R. (1984). The semiology of textualization. Language Sciences, 6, 271286.
Harris, R. (1987). The language machine. Duckworth.
Harris, R. (1989). The worst English in the world? The University of Hong Kong, Supplement to
the Gazette, 16 (1), 3746.
Harris, R. (1990). On folk and scientific beliefs. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and
Prototypes (pp. 449464). Routledge.
Harris, R. (1996). Signs, language and communication: Integrational and segregational
approaches. Routledge.
Harris, R. (1997). From an integrational point of view. In G. Wolf & N. Love (Eds.), Linguistics
inside out: Roy Harris and his critics (pp. 229310). Benjamins.
Harris, R. (1998). Introduction to integrational linguistics. Pergamon.
Harris R. (2003a). Nagarjuna, Heracleitus and the problem of language. In H. G. Davis & T. J.
Taylor (Eds.), Rethinking linguistics (pp. 171188). RoutledgeCurzon.
Harris R. (2003b). Mindboggling: Preliminaries to a science of mind. Pantaneto Press.
Harris R. (2005). The semantics of science. Continuum.
Harris R. (2011). Language myths, east and west. Integrationist Notes and Papers 20092011
(pp. 313). Bright Pen.
Hayakawa, S. I. (1990). Language in thought and action (5th ed.). Houghton.
Hume, D. (1888). A treatise of human nature. Clarendon: Oxford (Original work published
173840).
Hutton, C. (1996). The dictator of taste: Rules, regularities and responsibilities. Language
Sciences, 19, 4755.
Hutton, C. (1999). Linguistics and the Third Reich: Mother-tongue fascism, race, and the
science of language. Routledge.
Hutton, C. (2010). Universalism and human difference in Chomskyan linguistics: The first
superhominid and the language faculty. In D. A. Kibbee (Ed.), Chomskyan (r)evolutions (pp.
337351). Benjamins.
Hutton, C. (2011). The politics of the language myth. Language Sciences, 33, 503510.
Hutton, C. (2017). Bedrock concepts and integrational theory: Selves, animals and legal
persons. In A. Pabl (Ed.), Critical humanist perspectives: The integrational turn in philosophy of
language and communication (pp. 2844). Routledge.
Hutton, C. (2019). Integrationism and the self: Reflections on the legal personhood of animals.
Routledge.
63 James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Holt.
Jaspers, J. (2014). From unwanted to so-called expertise: Ideologizing sociolinguistics in the
mainstream media. Science Communication, 36, 570592.
Jung, C. (1928). Two essays on analytical psychology. Baillire.
Kalupahana, D. (2012). Mulamadhyamakakarika of Nagarjuna: The philosophy of the middle
way. Motilal Banarsidas.
Korzybski, A. (1994). Science and sanity: An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and
General Semantics (5th ed.). Institute of General Semantics.
Kroskrity, P. V. (2010). Language ideologies Evolving perspectives. In J. Jaspers , J. stman &
J. Verschueren (Eds.), Society and language use (Handbook of pragmatics highlights) (pp.
192211). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Locke, J. (1980). Second treatise on government. C. B. Macpherson (Ed.), Hackett (Original
work published 1690).
Luhmann, N. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. In F. Geyer & J. Van der Zeuwen
(Eds.), Sociocybernetic paradoxes (pp. 172192). Sage.
Makoni, S. (2016). Romanticizing differences and managing diversities: A perspective on
harmonization, language policy, and planning. Language Policy, 15, 223234.
Makoni, S. , & Pennycook, A. (2007). Disinventing and reconstituting languages. In S. Makoni &
A. Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp. 1041). Multilingual Matters.
Meissner, S. N. (2018). The moral fabric of linguicide: Un-weaving trauma narratives and
dependency relationships in indigenous language reclamation. Journal of Global Ethics, 14,
266276.
Menary, R. (Ed.). (2010). The extended mind. MIT Press.
Moore, G. (1925). A defence of common sense. In J. H. Muirhead (Ed.), Contemporary British
philosophy, second series (pp. 192233). George Allen & Unwin.
Mounier, E. (1952). Personalism. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Muehlmann, S. (2008). Spread your ass cheeks: And other things that should not be said in
indigenous languages. American Ethnologist, 35, pp. 3448.
Pabl, A. (2012). Logophilia, logophobia and the terra mota of persona linguistic experience.
Language and Communication, 32, 257264.
Pabl, A. (2019). In what sense is integrational theory lay-oriented? Notes on Harrisian core
concepts and explanatory terminology. Language Sciences, 72, 150159.
Pabl, A. , & Hutton, C. (2015). Signs, meaning and experience. de Gruyter.
Park, S.-Y. , & Wee, L. (Eds.). (2013). Markets of English: Linguistic capital and language policy
in a globalizing world. Routledge.
Pennycook, A. , & Makoni, S. (2019). Innovations and challenges in applied linguistics from the
Global South. Routledge.
Pollock, S. , Elman, B. , & Chang, K. (Eds.). (2015). World philology. Harvard University Press.
Saussure, F. (1922). Cours de linguistique Gnrale (2nd ed.). Payot.
Swift, J. (1712). A proposal for correcting, improving and ascertaining the English tongue.
Tooke.
von Mises, L. (2006). Marxism unmasked: From delusion to destruction. Foundation for
Economic Education.
Warner, S. L. N. (1999). Kuleana: The right, responsibility, and authority of 64indigenous
peoples to speak and make decisions for themselves in language and cultural revitalization.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 30, 6893.
Wilkins, J. (1688). An essay towards a real character and a philosophical language. Gellibrand.
Woolard, K. , & Schieffelin, B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23,
5582.
Yin J. (2018). Beyond postmodernism: A non-western perspective on identity. Journal of
Multicultural Discourses, 13, 193219.

A clash of linguistic philosophies? Charles Goodwins co-operative

action in integrationist perspective
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press.
Connell, R. (2007). Southern Theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social science.
Polity.
Du Bois, J. W. (2014). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3), 359410.
82 Duncker, D. (2019). The reflexivity of language and linguistic inquiry: Integrational linguistics
in practice. Routledge.
Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative action. Cambridge University Press.
Harris, R. (1981). The language myth. Duckworth.
Harris, R. (1990). Scriptism. In N. Love (Ed.), The foundations of linguistic theory. Selected
writings of Roy Harris (pp. 180196). Routledge.
Harris, R. (1993). Integrational linguistics. In A. Crochetire , J.-C. Boulanger & C. Ouellon
(Eds.), Actes du XVe congrs international des linguistes (pp. 321323). Presses de lUniversit
Laval.
Harris, R. (1996a). The language connection. Thoemmes Press.
Harris, R. (1996b). Signs, language and communication. Routledge.
Harris, R. (1998). Introduction to integrational linguistics. Pergamon Press.
Harris, R. (2003). Nagarjuna, Heracleitus and the problem of language. In H. G. Davis & T. J.
Taylor (Eds.), Rethinking linguistics (pp. 171188). RoutledgeCurzon.
Harris, R. (2006). Integrationist notes and papers 20032005. Tree Tongue.
Harris, R. (2012). Integrating reality. Bright Pen.
Hutton, C. (1990). Abstraction and instance. The type-token relation in linguistic theory.
Pergamon Press.
Jones, P. E. (2016). Coordination (Herbert H Clark), integration (Roy Harris) and the
foundations of communication theory: Common ground or competing visions? Language
Sciences, 53, 3143.
Jones, P. E. (2017). Language the transparent tool: Reflections on reflexivity and
instrumentality. Language Sciences, 61, 516.
Love, N. (1990). The locus of languages in a redefined linguistics. In H. G. Davis & T. J. Taylor
(Eds.), Redefining linguistics (pp. 53117). Routledge.
Pabl, A. (Ed.). (2017). Critical humanist perspectives. The integrational turn in philosophy of
language and communication. Routledge.
Pabl, A. (2019). Is a general non-ethnocentric theory of human communication possible? An
integrationist approach. Lingua. International Review of General Linguistics, 230, 102735.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.lingua.2019.102735
Pabl, A. & Hutton, C. (2015). Signs, meaning and experience: Integrational approaches to
linguistics and semiotics. Walter de Gruyter.
Pennycook, A. (2018). Posthumanist applied linguistics. Routledge.
Pennycook, A. & Makoni, S. (2020). Innovations and challenges in applied linguistics from the
global south. Routledge.
Taylor, T. J. (1990). Normativity and linguistic form. In H. G. Davis & T. J. Taylor (Eds.),
Redefining linguistics (pp. 111148). Routledge.
Text annotations: Examining evidence for a multisemiotic instinct and
the intertextuality of the sign in a database of pristine self-directed
communication
Alderson-Day, B. & Fernyhough, C. (2015). Inner speech: Development, cognitive functions,
phenomenology, and neurobiology. Psychological Bulletin, 141(5), 931965.
Antia, B. E. (2017a). Electronic terminology glosses, communities of practice and multilingual
academic literacies. edition Die Fachzeitschrift fr Terminologie, 1, 1317.
100 Antia, B. E. (2017b). Shh, hushed multilingualism! Accounting for the discreet genre of
translanguaged siding in lecture halls at a South African university. International Journal of the
Sociology of Language, 243, 183198.
Allwood, J. (2008). Dimensions of embodied communicationTowards a typology of embodied
communication. In I. Wachsmuth , M. Lenzen & G. Knoblich (Eds.), Embodied communication in
humans and machines (pp. 257284). Oxford University Press.
Bade, D. & Pabl, A. (2012). Signs unfounded and confounded. A reply to Sren Lund. RASK.
International Journal of Language and Communication, 35(1), 4385.
Banda, F. & Jimaima, H. (2015). The semiotic ecology of linguistic landscapes in rural Zambia.
Journal of Sociolinguistics, 19(5), 643670.
Blommaert, J. (2008). Grassroots literacy: Writing, identity and voice in Central Africa.
Routledge.
Bolter, J. & Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation: Understanding new media. MIT Press.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research
and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2(1), 127.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations.
Routledge.
Fishman, J. A. (1967). Bilingualism with and without diglossia; Diglossia with and without
bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues, 23(2), 2938.
Garca, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley-Blackwell.
Gmez-Jimnez, E. (2015). An introduction to graphology: Definition, theoretical background and
levels of analysis. Miscelnea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 51, 7185.
Harris, R. (1996). Signs, language, and communication: Integrational and segregational
approaches. Routledge.
Harris, R. (2009). Implicit and explicit language teaching. In M. Toolan (Ed.), Language
teaching: Integrational approaches (pp.2447). Routledge.
Harris, R. & Hutton, C. (2007). Definition in theory and practice. Continuum.
Hopper, P. (2000). The ideal of consistency in thinking about language. Southwest Journal of
Linguistics, 19, 110.
Iedema, R. (2000). Bureaucratic planning and resemiotisation. In: E. Ventola (Ed.), Discourse
and community: Doing functional linguistics (pp. 4770). Narr.
Iedema, R. (2003). Multimodality, resemiotization: Extending the analysis of discourse as multi-
semiotic practice. Visual Communication, 2(1), 2957.
Jakobson, R. (1959). On linguistic aspects of translation. In: R. A. Brower , (Ed.), On Translation
(pp. 232239). Harvard University Press.
John-Steiner, V. (1992). Private speech among adults. In: L. E. Berk & R. M. Diaz (Eds.),
Private speech: From social interaction to self-regulation (pp.285296). Erlbaum.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication.
Routledge.
Kress, G. (2011). Multimodal discourse analysis. In: J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 3550). Routledge.
Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design.
Routledge.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. 4th ed. The University of Chicago
Press.
101 Lewis, G. , Jones, B. & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Origins and development from
school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18, 641654.
Li, W. (2018) Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 930.
Lund, S. (2012). On Professor Roy Harriss integrational turn in linguistics. RASK: International
Journal of Language and Communication, 35, 342.
Makalela, L. (2015). Moving out of linguistic boxes: The effects of translanguaging strategies for
multilingual classrooms. Language and Education, 29(3), 200217.
Makoni, S. (2014). The Lord is my shock absorber: A sociohistorical integrationist approach to
mid-twentieth-century literacy practices in Ghana. In: A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.),
Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy (pp. 7597). Springer.
Marshall, C. C. (2010). Reading and writing the electronic book (Synthesis lectures on
information concepts, retrieval, and services #9) . DOI: 10.2200/s00215ed1v01y200907icr009.
McCarthy-Jones, S. & Fernyhough, C. (2011). The varieties of inner speech: Links between
quality of inner speech and psychopathological variables in a sample of young adults.
Consciousness and Cognition, 20(4), 15861593.
McIntosh, A. (1961). Graphology and meaning. Archivum Linguisticum, 13(2), 107120.
Otheguy, R. , Garca, O. , & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing
named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281307.
Rymes, B. (2014). Communicative repertoire. In: C. Leung & B. Street (Eds.) Routledge
companion to English language studies (pp. 287301). Routledge.
Vygotsky L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. The collected works of Lev Vygotsky (Vol. 1).
Plenum Press.
Wales, K. (2001). A dictionary of stylistics. Longman.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Transl. G. E. M. Anscombe . Basil
Blackwell.
Wolfe, J. L. (2000). Effects of annotations on student readers and writers. Proceedings of the
fifth ACM conference on digital libraries.San Antonio, Tex., USA:ACM Press, pp. 1926.
https://doi.org/10.1145/336597.336620
Wolfe, J. L. & Neuwirth, C. M. (2001). From the margins to the center: The future of annotation.
Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15(3), 333371.

The semiological implications of knowledge ideologies: A Harrisian

perspective
Arajo, M. & Maeso, S. R. (Eds.). (2015). Eurocentrism, racism and knowledge. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Bertaux, S. (2016). Eurocentrism, racism and knowledge: Debates on history and power in
Europe and the Americas. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(13), 24312433.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2016.1186812
Broks, P. (2006). Understanding popular science. Open University Press.
Camus, A. (1991). The myth of Sisyphus ( J. OBrien , Trans.). Vintage International. (Original
work published 1955).
Connell, R. (2007). Southern Theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social science. Allen
& Unwin.
Cupples, J. & Grosfoguel, R. (Eds.). (2019). Unsettling Eurocentrism in the westernized
university. Routledge.
119 Davis, D. R. (2002). The language myth and mathematical notation as a language of
nature. In R. Harris (Eds.), The language myth in western culture (pp. 139158). Curzon Press.
Dawkins, R. (1994, September 30). The moon is not a calabash. Times Higher Educational
Supplement, p.17.
Dawkins, R. (2009, February 11). Heat the hornet.Times Literary Supplement,35.
Fanon, F. (2010). Piel negra, mascaras blancas. Akal.
Grosfoguel, R. (2011). Decolonizing, post-colonial studies and paradigms of political economy:
Transmodernity, decolonial thinking, and global coloniality. Transmodernity: Journal of
Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World, 1(1). Retrieved from
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/21k6t3fq
Grosfoguel, R. (2019). What is racism? Zone of being and zone of non-being in the work of
Frantz Fanon and Boaventura de Sousa Santos. In J. Cupples & R. Grosfoguel . (Eds.). & J.
Rodriguez . (Trans.). Unsettling Eurocentrism in the westernized university (pp. 264274).
Routledge.
Harris, R. (1981). The language myth. Duckworth.
Harris, R. (1996). Signs, language and communication. Routledge.
Harris, R. (2002a). Preface. In R. Harris . (Ed.). The language myth in Western culture (p. vii).
Curzon Press.
Harris, R. (Ed.). (2002b). The language myth in Western culture. Curzon Press.
Harris, R. (2003). The necessity of artspeak. Continuum.
Harris, R. (2004). The linguistics of history. Edinburgh University Press.
Harris, R. (2005). The semantics of science. Continuum.
Harris, R. (2009). After epistemology. Authors Online.
Harris, R. (2013). Language and intelligence. Bright Pen.
Hutton, C. (2011). The politics of the language myth: Reflections on the writings of Roy Harris.
Language Sciences, 33(4), 503510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.04.005
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. Oxford University Press.
Joseph, J. E. (1997). The Language Myth myth: Roy Harriss red herrings. In G. Wolf & N. Love .
(Eds.). Linguistics inside out (pp. 941). John Benjamins B.V.
Magee, B. (1973). Popper. Fontana/Collins.
Marks, J. (2009). Why I am not a scientist: Anthropology and modern knowledge. University of
California Press.
Morrall, P. (2002). Sociology and nursing (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Mhlhustler, P. (2004). Reviews. Language in Society, 33, 285310.
10.10170S0047404504212052
Muller, J. (2009). Essay review: Southern Theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social
science. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 7(4), 505509.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767720903412325
Nietzsche, F. . (1989). Beyond good and evil ( W. Kaufmann , Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original
work published 1886).
Pabl, A. (2019a). In what sense is integrational theory lay-oriented? Language Sciences, 72(1),
150159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.langsci.2018.10.001
Pabl, A. (2019b). Is a general non-ethnocentric theory of human communication possible? An
integrationist approach. Lingua. International Review of General Linguistics, 230, 102735.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102735.
120 Pennycook, A. , & Makoni, S. (2020). Innovations and challenges in applied linguistics from
the Global South. Routledge.
Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge. Clarendon.
Postman, N. (2005). Amusing ourselves to death. Penguin.
Santos, B. de S. (2007). Beyond abyssal thinking: From global lines to ecologies of knowledges.
Review, 30(1), 4589.
Santos, B. de S. (2016). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide (2nd ed.).
Routledge.
Santos, B. de S. , Nunes, J. A. , & Meneses, M. P. (2007). Introduction: Opening up the canon
of knowledge and recognition of difference. In B. de Sousa Santos . (Ed.). Another knowledge is
possible (pp. viixvix). Verso.
Schwartz, B. (1997). Psychology, idea technology, and ideology. Psychological Science, 8(1),
2127.
Schwartz, B. (2014). The way we think about work is broken. TED: Ideas worth spreading.
Retrieved from
https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_the_way_we_think_about_work_is_broken?language
=en#t-303354
Sokal, A. , & Bricmont, J. (1998). Fashionable nonsense: The postmodern intellectuals abuse of
science. Picador.
Toulmin, S. (2007). Preface: How reason lost its balance. In B. de S. Santos (Ed.). Cognitive
justice in a global world (pp. ixxv). Lexington Books.
Weigand, E. (2018). The theory myth. Language and Dialogue, 8(2), 289305.
Wolpert, L. (1992). The unnatural nature of science. Harvard University Press.
iek, S. (1997). Multiculturalism, or the cultural logic of multinational capitalism. New Left Review,
225, 2851.

Rhetoric and integrationism: In search of rapprochement

Alcoff, L. M. (2017). Philosophy and philosophical practice: Eurocentrism as an epistemology of
ignorance. In I. J. Kidd , J. Medina , & J. G. Pohlhaus (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
epistemic injustice (pp. 397408). Routledge.
Blake, C. (2010). African origins of rhetoric. Routledge.
Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. University of California Press.
Burke, K. (1984). Permanence and change: An anatomy of purpose. University of California
Press.
Chakrabarty, D. (2009). The climate of history: Four theses. Critical Inquiry, 35(2), 197222.
10.1086/596640
Chakravartty, P. , Kuo, R. , Grubbs, V. , & McIlwain, C. (2018). #CommunicationSoWhite.
Journal of Communication, 68(2), 254266. 10.1093/joc/jqy003
Chemhuru, O. H. , & Makuvaza, N. (2014). Hunhu: In search of an indigenous philosophy for
the Zimbabwean education system. Journal of Indigenous Social Development, 3(1), 115.
Chimuka, T. A. (2001). Ethics among the Shona. Zambezia: A Journal of Social Studies in
Southern and Central Africa Zambezia, 28(1), 2337.
Chirindo, K. (2016). Bantu sociolinguistics in Wangari Maathais peacebuilding rhetoric. Womens
Studies in Communication, 39(4), 442459. 10.1080/07491409.2016.1228552
Chirindo, K. (2019). Micronations and postnational rhetorics. Womens Studies in
Communication, 41, 383393. 10.1080/07491409.2018.1551686.
Chivaura, V. G. (2006). Hunhu/Ubuntu: A substantial approach to endogenous development,
biocultural diversity and protection of the environment in Africa. Paper presented at the
Endogenous Development and Bio-Cultural Diversity Conference, Geneva, Switzerland.
134 Cicero . (2001). Orator. In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The rhetorical tradition:
Readings from classical times to the present (pp. 339346). Bedford/St. Martins.
Davis, D. (2014). Breaking down Man: A conversation with Avital Ronell. Philosophy and
Rhetoric, 47(4), 354385.
Davis, D. , & Ballif, M. (2014). Guest editors introduction: Pushing the limits of the Anthropos.
Philosophy and Rhetoric, 47(4), 346353.
Fortune, G. (1969). 75 years of writing in Shona. Zambezia: A Journal of Social Studies in
Southern and Central Africa Zambezia, 1(1), 5567.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. Pantheon
Books.
Gates, K. (2013). Key questions for communication and critical-cultural studies: Posthumanism,
network infrastructures, and sustainability. Communication in Critical/Cultura Studies, 10(23),
242247. 10.1080/14791420.2013.812596
Harris, R. (2015). Integrationism: A very brief introduction .
http://www.royharrisonline.com/integrational_linguistics/integrationism_introduction.html
Havelock, E. A. (1998). Preface to Plato. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Jasinski, J. , & Mercieca, J. R. (2010). Analyzing constitutive rhetorics. In S. J. Parry-Giles & J.
M. Hogan (Eds.), The handbook of rhetoric and public address (pp. 313341). Wiley-Blackwell.
Johnston, H. (1969). Liberia. Negro Universities Press.
Kahari, G. P. (1984/5). Cultural identity and cross-cultural communication: Problems of
translation. Zambezia, 12(1), 5573.
Kennedy, G. A. (1992). A hoot in the dark: The evolution of general rhetoric. Philosophy &
Rhetoric, 25(1), 121.
Kennedy, G. A. (1998). Comparative rhetoric: An historical and cross-cultural introduction.
Oxford University Press.
Le Grange, L. (2012). Ubuntu, ukama, environment and moral education. Journal of Moral
Education, 41(3), 11.
Maathai, W. (2004). Nobel lecture. The Nobel Foundation.
Maathai, W. (2006). Unbowed: A memoir. Alfred A. Knopf.
Maathai, W. (2010). The challenge for Africa. Anchor Books.
Makoni, S. B. (2012). Language and human rights discourses in Africa: Lessons from the
African experience. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 7(1), 120.
Makoni, S. B. (2013). An integrationist perspective on colonial linguistics. LSC Language
Sciences, 35, 8796.
Makoni, S. B. , & Severo, C. G. (2017). An integrationist perspective on African philosophy. In
A. Pabl (Ed.), Critical humanist perspectives: The integrational turn in philosophy of language
and communication (pp. 6376). Routledge.
Mangena, F. (2016). African ethics through Ubuntu: A postmodern exposition. Africology:
Journal of Pan African Studies, 9, 6680.
Mbembe, J.-A. , & Dubois, L. (2017). Critique of black reason. Duke University Press.
Mnyaka, M. , & Motlhabi, M. (2005). The African concept of Ubuntu/Botho and its socio-moral
significance. Black Theology Black Theology, 3(2), 215237.
Mukandi, B. (2017). South-south dialogue: In search of humanity. The Australian Journal of
Indigenous Education, 47(1), 7381. 10.1017/jie.2017.24
Murove, M. F. (2009). An African environmental ethic based on the concepts of Ukama and
Ubuntu. In M. F. Murove (Ed.), African ethics: An anthology of comparative and applied ethics
(pp. 315331). University of Kwazulu-Natal Press.
135 Ong, W. J. , & Hartley, J. (2013). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word.
Routledge.
Parrish, A. C. (2015). Adaptive rhetoric. Routledge.
Pitts, A. J. (2017). Decolonial praxis and epistemic injustice. In I. J. Kidd , J. Medina , & J. G.
Pohlhaus (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of epistemic injustice (pp. 149157).New York:
Routledge.
Rickert, T. J. (2013). Ambient rhetoric: The attunements of rhetorical being. University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge University Press.
Runia, E. (2014). Moved by the past: Discontinuity and historical mutation. Columbia University
Press.
Stillion Southard, B. F. (2019). Peculiar rhetoric: Slavery, freedom, and the African colonization
movement. University Press of Mississippi.
Stroud, S. R. (2002). Multivalent narratives: Extending the narrative paradigm with insights from
ancient Indian philosophical thought. Western Journal of Communication, 66(3), 369-393.
Vivian, B. (2004). Being made strange: Rhetoric beyond representation. State University of New
York Press.
Wynter, S. (2003). Unsettling the coloniality of being/power/truth/freedom: Towards the human,
after man, its overrepresentationAn argument. CR: The New Centennial Review, 3(3), 257337.

Integrationism and postcolonialism: Convergences or divergences? An

integrational discussion on ethnocentricity and the (post)colonial
translation myth
Benjamin, W. (2002). The task of the translator. In M. Bullock , M. Jennings , H. Eiland & G.
Smith (Eds.), Walter Benjamin: Selected writings, Volume I: 19131926 (pp. 253263). Belknap
Press.
Briggs, J. , & Sharp, J. (2004). Indigenous knowledges and development: A postcolonial
caution. Third World Quarterly 25(4), 661676.
Davis, D. R. (1997). The three-dimensional sign. Language Sciences 19(1), 2331.
de Campos, H. (1981). Deus e o Diabo no Fausto de Goethe. Perspectiva.
de Campos, H. (2007). Translation as creation and criticism. In A. S. Bessa & O. Cisneros
(Eds.),Novas: Selected writings (pp.312326; D. Gibson & H. de Campos , Trans). Northwestern
University Press.
de Campos, H. , & Wolff, M. T. (1986). The rule of anthropophagy: Europe under the sign of
devoration. Latin American Literary Review 14(27), 4260.
de Kock, L. (1992). Interview with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak: New Nation Writers Conference
In South Africa. Ariel 23(3), 2947.
Derrida, J. (1985). Des Tours de Babel. In J. F. Graham (Ed.), Difference in Translation (pp.
165207). Cornell University Press.
During, S. (1990). Postmodernism or post-colonialism today. In A. Milner , P. Thompson & C.
Worth (Eds.), Postmodern conditions (pp. 113131). Berg.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge ( A. Sheridan , Trans). London: Tavistock
(Original work published 1969).
Harris, R. (1981). The language myth. Ducksworth.
Harris, R. (1988). Language, saussure and wittgenstein. Routledge.
Harris, R. (1996). Signs, language and communication. Routledge.
Harris, R. (1997). From an integrational point of view. In G. Wolf and N. Love (Eds.), Linguistics
inside out: Roy Harris and his critics (pp. 229310). John Benjamins.
Harris, R. (1998). Introduction to integrational linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Harris, R. (2009a). Integrational notes and papers 20062008. Bright Pen.
Harris, R. (2009b). After epistemology. Bright Pen.
Harris, R. (2011). Integrationist notes and papers 20092011. Bright Pen.
Harris, R. (2013). Integrational notes and papers 2013. Bright Pen.
Levine, R. A. , & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes,
and group behavior. Wiley.
Mehrez, S. (1992). Translation and the postcolonial experience: The francophone North African
text. In L. Venuti (Ed.), Rethinking translation: Discourse subjectivity ideology (pp.
120138).Routledge.
153 Niranjana, T. (1992). Siting translation: History, post-structuralism and the colonial context.
University of California Press.
Norris, C. (1991). Deconstruction: Theory and practice. Routledge.
Pabl, A. (2019). Is a general non-ethnocentric theory of human communication possible? An
integrationist approach. Lingua. International Review of General Linguistics, 230, 150-159,
102735.
Prasad, G. J. V. (1999). Writing translation: The strange case of the Indian English novel. In S.
Bassnett & H. Trivedi (Eds.), Postcolonial translation: Theory and practice (pp. 4157). Taylor &
Francis Routledge.
Simon, S. (1992). The language of cultural difference: Figures of alterity in Canadian translation.
In L. Venuti (Ed.), Rethinking translation: Discourse subjectivity ideology (pp. 159176).
Routledge.
Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism
and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271313). Macmillan Education.
Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways. Dover Publications.
Young, R. J. C. (2009). What is the postcolonial? Ariel 40(1), 1325.
Young, R. J. C. (2016). Postcolonialism: An historical introduction. John Wiley & Sons.
Haas, M. (2011). The question is not whether integrationism can survive outside linguistics, but
whether linguistics can survive outside integrationism: an interview with Roy Harris. Language
Sciences 33, 498501.

Integrationism and the Global South: Songs as epistemic frameworks

Brockey, L. M. (2014). The visitor: Andr Palmeiro and the Jesuits in Asia. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Cadogan, L. (1971). Ywyra e'ery: Fluye del rbol la palavrasugestiones para el estudio de la
cultura Guarani. Paraguai/Assuo, Brazil: Centro de Estudios Antropologicos de La Universidad
Catolica.
168 Cesarino, P. (2013). Cartografias do cosmos: Conhecimento, iconografia e artes verbais
entre os Marubo. Mana, 19(3), 437471. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-93132013000300002
Chamorro, G. (2008). Terra Madura Yvy Araguyje: Fundamento da Palavra Guarani. Dourados,
Brazil: Editora UFGD.
Clastres, P. (1990). A fala sagrada, mitos e cantos sagrados dos ndios guarani. Campinas:
Papirus.
Clastres, P. (1990). A fala sagrada, mitos e cantos sagrados dos ndios guarani. Campinas:
Papirus.
Deleuze, G. & Guattari,F. (1987).A thousand plateaus. Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota
Press.
Freyre, G. (1933). Casa-grande and senzala: Formao da famlia brasileira sob o regime da
economiapatriarcal [The masters and the slaves: A study in the development of Brazilian
civilization]. So Paulo, Brazil: Global.
Hansen, J. A. (2010). Prefcio. In M. da Nbrega (Ed.). Dilogo sobre a Converso do Gentio (pp.
110). Recife, Brazil: MEC/Fundao Joaquim Nabuco/Editora Massangana.
Harris, R. (1996). Signs, language, and communication: Integrational and segregational
approaches. London, UK: Routledge.
Harris, R. (1998a). Integrational linguistics: A first reader. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Harris, R. (1998b). Introduction to integrationist linguistics. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Harris, R. (2000). Rethinking writing. New York, NY: Continuum.
Harris, R. (2009). Rationality and the literate mind. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hauck, G. , & Heurich, J. D. (2018). Language in the Amerindian imagination: An inquiry into
linguistic natures. Language and Communication, 63, 18.
Kiefer, B. (1977). A modinha e o lund; duas razes da msica popular brasileira. Porto Alegre,
Brazil: Movimento/UFRS.
Leite, S. (1938). Histria da Companhia de Jesus no Brasil. Tomo 2. Lisboa, Portugal: Livraria
Portuglia/ Rio de Janeiro, Brazil : Civilizao Brasileira.
Macedo, V. (2011). Tracking Guarani songs: Between villages, cities and worlds. Vibrant:
Virtual Brazilian Anthropology, 8(1), 377410. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1809-
43412011000100014
Makoni, S. (1998). In the beginning was the missionaries word: The European invention of
African languages: The case of Shona in Zimbabwe. In K. Prah (Ed.), Between extinction and
distinction: The harmonization and standardization of African languages (pp. 157165).
Johannesburg, South Africa: Wits University Press.
Makoni, S. (2011). Sociolinguistics, colonial and postcolonial: An integrationist perspective.
Language Sciences, 33, 680688. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2011.04.020
Makoni, S. , & Severo, C. G. (2017). An integrationist perspective on African philosophy. In A.
Pabl (Ed.), Critical humanist perspectives: The integrational turn in philosophy of language and
communication (pp. 6376). London, UK: Routledge.
Makoni, S. , Severo, C. G. , & Abdelhay, A. (2020). Colonial linguistics and the invention of
language. In A. Abdelhay , S. B. Makoni , & C. G. Severo (Eds.), Language planning and policy
ideologies, ethnicities, and semiotic spaces of power (pp. 211228). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK:
Cambridge Scholars.
Meli, B. (1997). El guaran conquistado y reducido: ensayos de etnohistoria. Asuncin del
Paraguay: CEADUC.
169 Nimuendaju, C. U. (1987). As lendas da criao e destruio do mundo como fundamento da
religio dos Apapocva-Guarani ( C. Emmerich & E. B. Viveiros de Castro , Trans). So Paulo,
Brazil: EDUSP/Hucitec.
Pabl, A. (2019) Is a general non-ethnocentric theory of human communication possible? An
integrationist approach. Lingua. International Review of General Linguistics, 230, 150159.
doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102735
Pennycook, A. & Makoni, S. (2020). Innovations and challenges in applied linguistics from the
Global South. London: Routledge.
Ross, A. S. , Rivers, D. J. (Eds.). (2018). The sociolinguistics of hip-hop as critical conscience:
Dissatisfaction and dissent. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Severo, C. G. (2016). The colonial invention of languages in America. Alfa, 60(1), 1127.
Severo, C. G. (2019). Os Jesutas e as Lnguas: Brasil a frica [The Jesuits and the Languages in
Colonial Brazil and Africa]. Campinas, Brazil: Pontes.
Shonekan S. (2015) Semiotics and songs: Visual and oral meanings. In S. Shonekan (Ed.),
Soul, country, and the USA (pp. 121131). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Thornton, J. (2014). Conquest and theology: The Jesuits in Angola, 15481650. Journal of Jesuit
Studies, 1, 245259.
Vainfas, R. (1995). A heresia dos ndios. So Paulo: Companhia das Letras.
Viveiros de Castro, E. (1986). Arawet: Os deuses canibais. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil:
ANPOCS/Jorge Zahar.
Viveiros de Castro, E. (1987). Nimuendaju e os Guaranti. In C. U. Nimuendaju (Ed.), As lendas
da criao e destruio do mundo como fundamento da religio dos Apapocva-Guarani ( C.
Emmerich & E. B. Viveiros de Castro , Trans; pp. xviixxxviii). So Paulo, Brazil: EDUSP/Hucitec.
Viveiros de Castro, E. (1992). ArawetFrom the enemys point of view: Humanity and divinity in
an Amazonian society. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Watts, R. J. , & Morrissey, F. A. (Eds.). (2019). Language, the singer and the song: The
sociolinguistics of folk performance. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Wisnik, J. M. (1989). O som e o sentido: Uma outra histria da msica. So Paulo, Brazil:
Companhia das Letras.

Words and other currencies

Baz, A. (2012). When words are called for. Harvard University Press.
Harris, R. (1980). The language makers. Cornell University Press.
Harris, R. (1981). The language myth. St. Martins.
Harris, R. (1987). The language machine, Cornell University Press.
Harris, R. (1996a). The language connection. Thoemmes.
Harris, R. (1996b). Signs, language, and communication. Routledge.
Harris, R. (2005). The semantics of science. Continuum.
Jackendoff, R. (2012). A users guide to thought and meaning. Oxford University Press.
Pearl, J. , & Mackenzie, D. (2018). The book of why the new science of cause and effect. Basic
Books.
Price, H. , & Menzies, P. (1993). Causation as a secondary quality. The British Journal for the
Philosophy of Science, 44(1), 187203.
Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality. Cambridge University Press.
Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. Oxford University
Press.
Beyond IL:Languaging without languages
Almeida, D. , Poeppel D. & Corina, D. (2016). The processing of biologically plausible and
implausible forms in American sign language: Evidence for perceptual tuning. Language,
Cognition, and Neuroscience 11, 361374. 10.1080/23273798.2015.1100315
Backus, A. (2014). Towards a usage-based account of language change: Implications of
contact linguistics for linguistic theory. In R. Nicola (Ed.), Questioning language contact: Limits
of contact, contact at its limits (pp. 91118). Brill.
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Chialvo, D. R. (2010). Emergent complex neural dynamics. Nature Physics, 6, 744750.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys1803
Conklin, K. & Schmitt, N. (2012). The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics 32, 4561. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000074
Davies, M. (2010). The corpus of historical American English: 400 million words, 18102009.
https://www.english-corpora.org/coha/.
Duncker, D. (2011). On the empirical challenge to international studies in language. Language
Sciences 33, 533543. 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.04.013
Eckert, P. (2011). Language and power in the preadolescent heterosexual market. American
Speech 86(1): 8597.
195 Flege, J. E. (1987). The production of new and similar phones in a foreign language:
Evidence for the effect of equivalence classification. Journal of Phonetics, 15(1), 4565.
http://doi.org/10.1016/s0095-4470(19)30537-6
Gramling, D. (2016). The invention of monolingualism. Bloomsbury Academic.
Harris, R. (2002). The language myth in Western culture. Curzon Press.
Head, A. R. (2012). The sounds of social change: Phonology and identity in Elba, Alabama.
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Auburn University.
Hopper, P. J. (2015). Emergent grammar. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.). The Routledge
Handbook of Discourse Analysis (p. 301314). Routledge.
Kay, P. , Regir, T. , Gilbert, A. L. & Ivy, R. B. (2009). Lateralized Whorf: Language influences
perceptual decision in the right visual field. In J. W. Minette & W. S.-Y. Wang (Eds.), Language,
evolution and the brain (pp. 261284). City University of Hong Kong Press.
Kemmerer, D. , & Eggleston, A. (2010). Nouns and verbs in the brain: Implications of linguistic
typology for cognitive neuroscience. Lingua. International review of general linguistics. Revue
internationale de linguistique generale, 120(12), 26862690. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.03.013.
Kretzschmar, W. A. (2009). The linguistics of speech. Cambridge University Press.
Kretzschmar,W. A.( 2012).Variation in the traditional vowels of the Eastern States.American
Speech, 87(4):378390.
Kretzschmar, W. A. (2015). Language and complex systems. Cambridge University Press.
Kuhl, P. (2010). The linguistic genius of babies .
http://www.ted.com/talks/patricia_kuhl_the_linguistic_genius_of_babies?language=en (17 June
2015).
Labov, W. (2010). What is to be learned? A paper presented at 34th LAUD Symposium on
Cognitive Linguistics, University of Koblenz-Landau, Mainz, Germany.
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~wlabov/Papers/WTBL.pdf (3 July 2011).
Ladd, D. R. , Roberts, S. G. and Dediu, D. 2015. Correlational studies in typological and
historical linguistics. Annual Review of Linguistics 1, 221241. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
linguist-030514-124819
Le Page, R. B. & Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches to
language and ethnicity. Cambridge University Press.
Love, N. (2017). On languaging and languages. Language Sciences, 61, 113147.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2017.04.001
Makoni, S. B. (2011). Sociolinguistics, colonial and postcolonial: A integrationist perspective.
Language Sciences, 33, 680688.
Mampe, B. , Friederici, A. D. , Christophe, A. , & Wermke, K. (2009). Newborns cry melody is
shaped by their native language. Current Biology, 19(23), 19941997.
10.1016/j.cub.2009.09.064/j.cub.2009.09.064
McGee, M. C. (1980). The ideograph: A link between rhetoric and ideology. Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 66(1), 116. 10.1080/00335638009383499
McIlroy, G. , & Storbeck, C. (2011). Development of deaf identity: An ethnographic study.
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(4), 494511. 10.1093/deafed/enr017
Orman, J. (2013). Linguistic diversity and language loss: A view from integrational linguistics.
Language Sciences, 40, 111. 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.04.005
Poeppel, D. , Emmorey, K. , Hickok, G. , & Pylkkanen, L. (2012). Towards a new neurobiology
of language. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(41), 1412514131. 10.1523/jneurosci.3244-12.2012
196 Sabino, R. (2012). Language contact in the Danish West Indies: Giving Jack his jacket.
Brill.
Sabino, R. (2018). Languaging without languages: Beyond metro-, multi-, poly-, pluri- and
translanguaging. Brill.
Schmid, H.-J. (2014). Entrenchment, memory and automaticity: The psychology of linguistic
knowledge and language learning . http://www.anglistik.uni-
muenchen.de/personen/professoren/schmid/schmid_publ/introduction_entrenchment.pdf (2 July
2015).
Spears, A. K. (1982). The Black English semi-auxiliary come. Language, 58, 850872.
10.2307/413960
Vigliocco, G. , Vinson, D. P. , Druks, J. , Barber, H. , & Cappa, S. F. (2011). Nouns and verbs in
the brain: A review of behavioral, electrophysiological, neuropsychological and imaging studies.
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(3), 407426. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.04.007
Wolfram, W. (1994). Resolving dialect status: Levels of evidence in assessing African-American
Vernacular English forms. In C. Bernstein , T. E. Nunnally , & R. Sabino (Eds.). Language
Variation in the South (pp. 490507). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.