Logophilia, logophobia and the terra mota of personal linguistic experience

► Teaching an integrational version of linguistics leads to ‘rehumanising’ the discipline. ► If Hong Kong wants English, then Hong Kongers have to take responsibility for their English. ► Metalinguistics is subject to semantic indeterminacy, like anything else in language. ► Linguistics curricula do not encourage students to ask certain questions. This article discusses how an integrational approach to teaching linguistics at tertiary education institutions differs from the orthodox approach. Drawing from experience with English in Hong Kong, it is argued that individuals need to become confident and responsible language-users, which, in turn, requires a different understanding of how language relates to one’s personal life. A ‘science’ of linguistics, however, takes for granted that there is a semantically determinate metalanguage which operates independently of time, culture, language, and people; a consequence of this is that students come to think of verbal communication exclusively in reference to languages, i.e. fixed codes that individuals already possess prior to language-use. Mythical thinking about language, however, leads to pathologies identified here as ‘logophilia’ and ‘logophobia’, respectively.