In an interview in 1989, Noam Chomsky argued, in response to a question about how particular languages change over time, that ‘there is no such thing as a language’ (2014 [1989]). The idea that particular named languages – English, French, Chinese, etc. – do not actually exist has been put forward as a provocation on a number of occasions over the past few decades by scholars from camps scattered across the field of linguistics (e.g. Makoni and Pennycook 2007), and has gained a certain traction in endeavours to problematize some of the assumptions that underpin both scholarly and folk linguistics. But the idea presents an obvious challenge for those interested in questions of ontology. After all, if ontology deals in the existential nature of things, then where does arguing that languages – and possibly even language itself (Harris 1981) – do not exist, leave investigations into the nature of their existence? If ‘there is no such thing’ as English, what exactly is the English Language Teaching industry doing day in, day out, all around the globe? The importance of ontology for both theorising and practice is that it provides the foundations for prettymuch everything else. As Heidegger pointed out, science presupposes ontology (1962 [1927]). Or as Saussure put it, the ‘object [of investigation] is not given in advance of the viewpoint... Rather, one might say that it is the viewpoint adopted which creates the object’ ([1916] 1983, p. 8). And just as this is the case for science, so it also applies to teaching. The axiomatic concept you have about the phenomenon that figures as the subject of your teaching determines (or at least influences) what it is you teach. Your ontological understanding of English, for example, will create the parameters for the type of English you teach, along with the uses to which it is put, the status it has, and so on. Everything else flows from this.

中文翻译：

---

英语本体论书评：概念化学习、教学和评估语言

在 1989 年的一次采访中，诺姆·乔姆斯基 (Noam Chomsky) 在回答有关特定语言如何随时间变化的问题时辩称，“没有语言这样的东西”（2014 [1989]）。在过去的几十年里，分散在语言学领域的学者（例如 Makoni）在许多场合提出了特定命名语言——英语、法语、汉语等——实际上并不存在的想法，作为挑衅。和 Pennycook 2007），并在努力解决支撑学术和民间语言学的一些假设方面获得了一定的吸引力。但是这个想法对那些对本体论问题感兴趣的人提出了一个明显的挑战。毕竟，如果本体论处理事物的存在本质，那么，在哪里争论语言——甚至可能是语言本身（哈里斯，1981）——不存在，而留下对其存在本质的调查呢？如果“没有英语这样的东西”，那么全球英语语言教学行业日复一日地在做什么？本体论对于理论和实践的重要性在于，它为几乎所有其他事物提供了基础。正如海德格尔所指出的，科学以本体论为前提（1962 [1927]）。或者正如索绪尔所说，“[调查的]对象不是在观点之前给出的……相反，人们可以说是所采用的观点创造了对象”（[1916] 1983，第8页） . 正如科学是这样，它也适用于教学。你对作为教学主题的现象的公理化概念决定（或至少影响）你的教学内容。例如，您对英语的本体论理解将为您教授的英语类型、其用途、其地位等创建参数。其他一切都由此而生。