Higher education institutions worldwide base international student recruitment on the assumption that their preparedness in ‘English’ is assured if they reach a certain level in tests such as the International English Language Testing System (IELTS). This assumes an abstract, objectivist view of language that sees the ‘English’ as removable for testing in any context. However, in an individual, subjectivist view of language, ‘English’ is inextricably linked with context – that is, subject content which symbiotically connects thought and meaning. In this article, the authors outline these views of language and consider the ‘English’ of IELTS. They then detail interviews and focus groups which they conducted with lecturers in the subject areas of Design, Nursing, Engineering, Business, Computing and Psychology. These researched the ‘English’ required in subjects and the thinking underpinning it. The authors go on to present and discuss results around three themes of ‘How “English” is specific to the content of subjects’, ‘How the “English” of subjects is underpinned by unique ideological and psychological elements’ and ‘How the non-textual elements of different subjects are intertwined with their “English”’. The results illustrate why it is necessary to challenge the power invested in IELTS, and why determining English preparedness needs to be undertaken within the subject context.

For Academic Literacies, the world is textually mediated; written texts and what informs them reveal elements such as subject-discipline practices. Furthermore, multi-modalities, for example, visual representation, inform written text, and multiple methods of inquiry, including interviews, shed light on written text production. In this article we argue that the word is not enough, and non-textual elements must also be considered. From multiple-discipline focused research, we present data from interviews and focus groups with Design and Nursing lecturers that explored student success holistically, not solely through, or for, written text production. We highlight non-textual elements key to both student success, and written text production, such as ‘empathy’, the ‘visual’, the ‘non-verbal’, and also the inability of text to reveal certain key features. We argue that rather than solely prioritise text, Academic Literacies approaches can more effectively help students succeed by holistically considering non-textual elements.

Key ‘generic’ assessment task words such as ‘discuss’ and ‘critically evaluate’ are integral to higher education assessment. Although sources such as study skills guides give generic decontextualised glossaries of these words, much research rightly argues for greater dialogue between students (particularly ‘non-traditional’ students) and lecturers to help students understand and use such words. This paper presents the results from ‘staged’ focus groups with lecturers and students from the UK and China that created a forum for such dialogue, where many of these words and their interpretations were talked about. Results show very different interpretations, informed by factors such as ‘language’, ‘culture’ and ‘subject’. We propose these factors be used in an ‘anti-glossary’ approach, which we describe here. This approach is not against glossaries per se, but counteracts the assumption that glossary definitions are explicit, and adopts a social constructivist contextualisation of the task words through teacher-led dialogue.

We argue that current approaches to Study Skills support are presented as being a panacea for resolving the issues presented by neoliberal approaches to educational expansion. We argue that for such a panacea to be believed pedagogically effective, four key tenets must be adhered to: Study skills is a definable entity; it is valuable for every subject; it can be embedded, and; Study Skills helps students succeed in their subjects. We argue these tenets are devoid of any sound pedagogical basis, yet that they are ideal for, and align with, neoliberal ideologies and free market political economy. We consider the organisational structuration of Study Skills as underpinned by Lukes’s third dimension of power, outlining how Study Skills represents a constitutive fantasy, a magical Tinkerbell for all to believe in that solves everyone’s problems. We propose HE dispels this Tinkerbell by ceasing to believe in it, and instead resources subject-based support.

In this conceptual article, we illuminate Western building conservation philosophy practice with insights into Eastern conservation philosophy and associated aesthetic understanding. We frame dialogue recognizing individual and societal perspectives on treatments to buildings that attempt to attain “permanence” or “impermanence” in form, fabric, and artifact. Although not expressly sharing origins, Eastern and Western conservation philosophies practically yield commensurate or quasi approaches in intervention. These similarities have not been notably articulated before, and reveal meaningful insights for decision heuristics and guidance fundamental for repair scheme design and intervention. Western, pattern-based views relating to philosophical reasons around the impossibility of perfection, or “correctness” in physical building form resonate with Eastern views supported by Kiku Kiwari. Moreover, universality in acceptance of Western Patina and Eastern Wabi-Sabi, and Eastern Kintsugi and Western legible fabric repair convey overt signals of philosophies beyond technical performance. Moreover, we find Western bias toward “tangibility”, and greater appreciation of “intangibility” in Eastern approaches that are culturally enriching and go beyond mere retention of fabric and architectural form, linking building memory with territory. We suggest potential cross-fertilisation of thinking to create an environment of greater cultural understanding of the motives, thoughts, and practices in East and West.

Corpus linguistics, or the gathering together of language into a body for analysis and development of materials, is claimed to be an assured, established method (or field) that valuably informs pedagogical materials and knowledge of language (e.g. Ädel 2010; Gardner & Nesi, 2013). The fundamental validity of corpus linguistics is rarely, if ever, critiqued. In this empirical paper we critically consider the foundations of corpus linguistics as being based on an abstract objectivist view of language. We critique this foundation through the lens of an individual subjectivist view of language. Our introduction outlines abstract objectivist and individual subjectivist views of language described by Voloshinov (1973). We then present what is claimed regarding corpus linguistics, and consider contemporary critiques of these claims . We then critique the foundations of corpus linguistics from an individual subjectivist view of language. We illustrate this critique by drawing on data from interviews and focus groups with content material lecturers and students in the subject areas of ‘Business’; ‘Nursing’; ‘Design’ and ‘Computing’. These data question the fundamental assumption about how corpus linguistics operates: that what is counted is indeed countable. The data show how ostensibly similar words are understood in very different ways with very different underpinning psychological elements. We argue that corpus linguistics thus informs pedagogical materials with a merely passive understanding of the language. This view can only gain access to the inert crust of previous language, because it removes language from its individual subjective context. This context is fundamental to giving language the conscious and psychological elements that underpin its use. We argue the language should be taught through dialogue in this subject context and not removed from it.