Dear Antonio,

hypostatyze means ' to treat or represent (something abstract) as a concrete reality'. It seems, in the context it would be something like to literally treat English as a universal code (language), while obviously it is not.

The idea of a universal language is still a hypothesis claiming that no natural language (due to its different ambiguities) can be universal. Instead, a special "grammatically correct" language must be constructed to directly reflect the structure of the world. And this language would be universal. Such philosophers as Carnap, Russell and Wittgenstein had to say something about it.

The term hypostatized used to describe the character of English is, so I gather, an innecessary update of Marx's concept of reification (Verdinglichung), i.e., the fetishization of products and ideas in capitalist societies. In this sense, hypostatized simply means "something to which material existence has been ascribed". In the case of English, this has become a product, packaged and marketized for prompt consumption.

Thank you Sergio.

What synonym would you suggest to replace "hypostatized"?

Are you also aware of the etymology of the term?

I was thinking to criticise the use of the expression and advance "hyper-statized" as a more appropriate alternative (I presume "hypostatized" comes from "hypo-" + "static"), but to do this, I should neatly understand the meaning first.

"Hypo-statized" appears to me inappropriate in that context.

The best term is "reified". The idea here is that language is treated (quite ideologically) as an entity in its own right , and not as a tool for communication among a community of speakers. The term hypostatized, on the other hand, can be used as a synonym (meaning to personify, embody, or treat as real, from the Greek hypostatos :"placed under; "hypo-histasthai, "to place under"), but it is an innecessary addition in the context of applied linguistics where the pair reification-reified is commonly associated with another key term  (commodification). Finally, you should be aware of the fact that most readers are unfamiliar with Greek terms, which, ultimately, may impair comprehension. Thus, your suggested term "hyperstatized" which etymologically renders "something placed above", could be useful provided that you clarify that hyperstatized languages are those which are placed above their users. The connotation of marketization would, however, be lost. 

I see now, thank you.

I wrongly assumed the etymology of "hypostatized" derived from "hypo-static" (i.e., "a little static", which is clearly not the case).

to treat or represent (something abstract) as a concrete reality.

However, whether the term used is 'hypostatized' or 'reified', describing English as a Lingua Franca as either represents a serious misunderstanding of current research into English as a Lingua Franca (see Baker & Jenkins 2015, available on ResearchGate, for a full explanation of why O'Regan is so wrong).

Dear All

I could not, to be frank, make head or tail of O'Regans statement (may be because I am not a professional linguist), but I could very well understand, after reading Sergio's explanation, the concept of reification.

But is it what O'Regan meant by hypostatize?

I would like to dwell a little on the etymology of this word.

The OED does not have the word hypostate, from which I think hypostatize comes. But it has 'apostate' (meaning one who forsakes his religion or faith) which is apo+state, where apo means away from, and state is from 'stenai (stand). What I will surmise is that English has a particular stand/state/position as a language, and many aspires to learn it and communicate using it.

Now, take the case of India. Those with Hindi as mother tongue will use English in a particular way as a lingua franca (we call it Hinglish), which an Englishman definitely consider as below his stand (hypostate/infradig). Those with Malayalam as mother tongue (like me) will also use English as lingua franca (Manglish), which will also be hypostate. Fun starts when Hinglish meets Manglish. Each person will consider the other's lingua franca as hypostate, and this is truly hypostatizing.

Am I right?

Narayanan

The term reification surely does not apply to research itself. No one, including myself, would admit doing research for just obtaining conceptual products. However, that's precisely the way current research in applied linguistics is being regarded by some (where are you going to get funds from if your research is not sellable?). On the other hand, whether ESL, ELF or EFL speakers perceive language marketing as commodification it's a completely different matter.

Please, stop spreding confusion. Hypostatize does not come for hypostate as I explained in my second answer. The problem is that O'Reagan seems to have missed this as well which, clearly, is at the root of the confusion. In this sense, Nagarayan's appeal to language positioning betrays a post-colonial trauma (or probably a religious bias) that sees hierarchies everywhere. As an EFL speaker, I do not regard non-native speakers coming from other parts of the world as hypostates, nor are native speakers a superior caste conveying pure meaning through English. Such ideology-loaded views are completely out of place in global(ized) communities.

Please follow the links (and stop guessing):

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypostatize

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hypostatize

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/es/definicion/ingles_americano/hypostatize

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hypostatize

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

Dear Sergio

I have no religious trauma, please do not assume such things; nor do I have any post-colonial trauma. There are hierarchies ein every part of the world, and the positioning concepts differ. What I gave is just my impression on what english as lingua franca of one group is considered, especially spoken ("English as she is spoken"), and this is very much different in other parts of the world when compared to actual english. It is a fact, that is all, and any one will be right to consider that English as hypostate, in my opinion. Of course such an english is likely to be full of fallacies (as far as grammar, etc., is concerned)

As regards etymology, the 'state' (state of affairs) I gave is same as the being, existence, etc given by Avra.

Narayanan

Dear Jennifer,

thank you for your intervention (I have just read your work "Criticising ELF").

I simply believe that any language is an ongoing process of transformation and adaptation, and ELF particularly, due to its own nature, requires a multidisciplinary approach and understanding. I do not mean to be simplistic at all but honestly, I cannot see any point in O'Regan's assumption, apart from a complicated phrasing and rephrasing of the concept of hypostatisation/reification... A lack of deep understanding of ELF constant (re)developments appears evident on his part.

Dear Narayanan,

You grasped my uncertainty about the etymology of the term "hypostasised". In fact, I couldn't find it either through the dictionary - which is why I asked my question here.

I appreciate your attempt to give an alternative interpretation of the etymology, but this is not correct (as per Sergio above). "Hypo-" (below/under) is a quite different suffix from "apo" (away from). Sergio and Massoud perfectly clarified the meaning, in my view.

Instead, I was thinking, it would be particularly interesting - as you suggested - to investigate what happens when two different "region-bound Englishes" (e.g., Manglish, Itanglish, Spanglish, Singlish, etc.) get in contact, as you mentioned.

Thank you for your comment.

Dear Antonio

Thank you very much for your very gentlemanly comments;I appreciate the thought and heart behind that.

I come from a medical background, and very very often come across these three prefixes, hypo-, hyper and apo. Hence my interest in and easiness to grasp them.

Now the 'state' here is realated to the use of the word in state of affairs, or state of existence or even status.

Now there are many Englishes out there. But whatever said and done, you will have to agree that it is the English of  England (of course in there there will be variations; I have seen My Fair Lady and read Shaw's drama on which it is based), or rather a blue blooded Englishman would be occupying the regal status, and all other English especially as EFL will be be considered as hypostate, especially when the common man uses it ; even though none may not say it openly,, it is fact. This is applicable not only for English, but any language which becomes a lingua franca. For example, Italian and French are spoken in their fomer occuppied territories which had other mother tongues will be considered as hypostatus. There is no animosity or post-colonial bitterness or any thing in this. This is applicable not only for European languages. We have lot of ppeople with other mother tongues whose Malayalam we consider as hypostate.

Now as regards Manglish, it has been studied (Manglish is applicable toboth Malayalam and Malaysian). http://www.the-criterion.com/V2/n4/Thomas.pdf is one such. Malayalam, which is one among five classical  Languages in India) is considered even as a creole; and not only manglish, but malayalam itself has European influence (see my two papers in RG)

Thank you again, Antonio

Narayanan

Dear Narayanan,

I understand your point clearly and I must admit that you may be right in a way.

But please note the question I addressed was concerned with the etymology and meaning of the word "hypostasised", which I did not find really clear.

Honestly, I guess you made a good point in discussing the term in an alternative manner.

Thank you.

Dear Antonio,

hypostatyze means ' to treat or represent (something abstract) as a concrete reality'. It seems, in the context it would be something like to literally treat English as a universal code (language), while obviously it is not.

The idea of a universal language is still a hypothesis claiming that no natural language (due to its different ambiguities) can be universal. Instead, a special "grammatically correct" language must be constructed to directly reflect the structure of the world. And this language would be universal. Such philosophers as Carnap, Russell and Wittgenstein had to say something about it.

SL@ Madam it related to the English only.

Dear Antonio

Excuse me, but I am taking the liberty to bring in biology and try to explain what O'Regan meant by ".......linguistic pragmatic interactions of speakers of different first languages assume the nature of a fantastic relation between speakers of an hypostatized universal code"

As per the dictionary, hypostasis has three meanings, see attached screenshot.

In the body, blood flow is 'dynamic' and not 'static'. As age advances, it becomes less dynamic and tends to become more static, especially in the veins, due to many reasons. Then,if you stand for a long time, due to the effect of gravity, it becomes a stasis in the lower-hypo-part of the body. This is hypostasis of blood; it can become apparent as a number of varicose veins

Now when you concrete a roof, at first it is not so concrete, with the different parts remaining separate. You pour water on it and you can visualise it as the concrete becoming static and 'concrete' in the lower, hypo, part of the roof. So concretisationis sort of equivalent of hypostasis. When faced with a problem, our thoughts are in a dynamic state and we get a lot of fluid ideas which when we think them out properly will finally settle 'down' and we get a 'concrete' idea of what to do. Thoughts are not affected by gravity, but still, as a metaphor, we can say that there was hypostasis and formation of concrete idea.

Now the hypostattised blood in the varicose veins too can get clotted and become sort of 'concrete' relatively. They occur in different veins which can be considered as different pools. It can be said that if the blood in dynamic circulation is a universal code, then the concretised blood in the pools are hypostatised forms of the universal code.

I think what O'Regan meant is that English is a universal code (as Natalia suggested) . In places where it is mother tongue as well as lingua franca, it is not hypostatised but is dynamic. But the English in the pools where it is not a mother tongue but is EFL are hypostatised.forms. And these pools communicate with each other because doing so is a fetish.

I think he put in a nice round about way what would otherwise may have sounded rude to ssome.

Hope the above is not 'confusin'

Narayanan

Dear Wolfgang

Thanks for the comment. As someone said, the World is an Oyster, or rather the human body.if you take the whole world, world of languages is also a closed system, with English having spread out most, given out most and may received "back" most, in terms of words at least. After a time, changes in English in the dynamic part of  the system, ie., the English mother areas (eg. they may decide to do away with the use of am after I, use verbs like go-getting, etc.,) will fail to reach hypostatized, clotted, concretized pockets of English in areas where it is L2.

This is just like anticancer drug given to a patient failing to reach areas with stagnant blood flow

:-)

Narayanan

PS. You may like to look up my recently uploaded article on Astrology

Dear Wolfgang

Thanks. :-)

I intend to take the analogy with the Human body, visvis languages, further, but here.

Cell surface antigens can be taken as analogous to a Language. All bodies start with one set or one Language on the surface of the totipotential zygote cell. Then they divide and finally exhibit languages different from each other in different type of cells such that one cell can uniquely communicate only with same cell type. There are as many languages, all originated from the same 'surface language', as there are tissues types (squamous, adeno, blood cells, etc.,). The same is likely to be the case as regards our languages too, since all human beings originated from the same First Humans.

Interested?

Narayanan

[email protected]