Summary
In my article, dialogue is suggested as a basic direction for Anglistics. Such a perspective results 
from a normative notion of dialogue based on a set of particular criteria. In general terms, a case 
is made for (self)-critical and respectful confrontation with other viewpoints within and beyond 
Anglistics to further develop existing positions and to create new forms of co-operation. While 
in the ﬁrst two sections this concept is introduced and applied to the discipline of Anglistics, 
the ﬁnal section is focussed on an area of major conﬂict in contemporary ELT debates. In fact, 
a dialogic approach will be suggested for dealing with two opposite tendencies, one aiming for 
standardization and the other for a humanistic form of education.
Keywords: Dialogue, Anglistics, interdisciplinarity, culture, educational standards, Common 
European Framework of Reference for Languages    
 Povzetek
Članek vidi dialog kot osnovno smer anglistike in izhaja iz normativnega pojmovanja le-tega, ki 
temelji na točno določenih kriterijih. V splošnem gre za predstavitev možnosti, ki predpostavljajo 
(samo)kritično in spoštljivo soočenje z drugimi stališči znotraj anglistike pa tudi onkraj nje za 
nadaljnji razvoj obstoječih dognanj ter vzpostavitev novih oblik povezovanja. Prvi poglavji uvedeta 
koncept in se navežeta na anglistiko kot disciplino, sklepni del razprave pa se osredotoči na področje 
poučevanja angleščine (ELT) in nesoglasja, ki se pojavljajo v sodobnem času. Dialoški pristop 
predlaga konsenz med dvema nasprotujočima si težnjama, med tisto, ki zagovarja standardizirano, 
in tisto, ki si prizadeva za humanistično obliko izobraževanja.
Ključne besede: dialog, anglistika, interdisciplinarnost, kultura, standardi izobraževanja, 
Skupni evropski referenčni okvir za jezike
 DOI: 10.4312/elope.3.1-2.233-244
When I ﬁrst met Meta Grosman in 1990, she was already a well-established professor of high 
international repute, while I was at the beginning of my career. Yet, when we discussed our ideas 
on literature teaching, she treated me like an equal partner in a most constructive professional 
debate. When she then invited me to Ljubljana for a public talk at the Filozofska fakulteta, this 
highly challenging and respectful sharing, testing and further developing of ideas was continued, 
and I am most grateful to her that we have carried on in this vein until the very present. In 
recent years, I have repeatedly made attempts to develop a normative concept of dialogue as a 
foundation for research in English Studies (cf. Delanoy 2002 and 2005). In fact, Meta Grosman’s 
work and her personality have been a great source of inspiration for this project. In other words, 
I see her as a role model for a life lived in dialogue, and it is through people like her that I have 
kept my belief in the possibility of dialogue as a basic direction for human existence.
In the following reﬂections, a case will be made for Anglistics as a dialogic discipline. Such a 
perspective implies openness towards other viewpoints, a continuous questioning of the tried and 
tested, and the ability to forge new links both within and beyond disciplinary boundaries. First, 
this notion will be contrasted with other concepts sharing a similar agenda. In fact, attention will 
be drawn to areas of overlap and diﬀerence between the concepts of dialogue, interdisciplinarity 
and culture as orientations for English Studies. Secondly, the normative criteria underlying my 
understanding of dialogue will be discussed and related to the discipline of Anglistics. Finally, 
one concrete example will be given to discuss the relevance of a dialogic approach. Here, the 
focus is on the debate on what in German-speaking countries has been labelled as educational 
standards for English language learning.   
 Suggesting dialogue as a foundation for Anglistics implies certain programmatic interests. As will 
be shown in the second section, my understanding of dialogue is based on a speciﬁc set of key 
convictions derived from a post-Gadamerian hermeneutics, Bakhtin’s notion of heteroglossia and 
late-modern concepts of subjectivity.  e term Anglistics refers to the discipline and the location 
from where I speak. Although Anglistics and English Studies will be used synonymously in the 
following reﬂections, Anglistics also has speciﬁc meaning implications. In fact, the term mainly 
occurs outside English speaking countries, thus indicating that my perspective is inextricably 
linked to foreign language studies. 
Anglistics is also a reference to a speciﬁc ﬁeld of enquiry and its institutional anchoring. In line 
with various other upper and lower case distinctions I also distinguish between an Anglistics and 
an anglistics. According to my understanding of these two concepts, the upper case variant refers 
to English Studies as a historically grown and institutionally established research discipline in its 
own right which has mainly concerned itself with the study of the languages, literatures and 
cultures of English speaking communities. On the other hand, anglistics stands for any concern 
with issues related to English-speaking communities going beyond the research practices of 
Anglistics. Such issues may either fall into the domain of other research disciplines (e.g. history, 
media studies, geography, business studies), or they may still have escaped the notice of existing 
disciplines both inside and outside Anglistics. Following Rob Pope (2002, 12), I also favour an 
approach to English Studies which aims at preparing “… the way for subjects, disciplines and 
forms of knowledge which as yet have no name”. Such an approach implies a strong interest in 
the lower case variant. Yet, I am aware that in my research I have mainly argued from perspectives 
aﬃliated to Anglistics. Speaking of a dialogic Anglistics, therefore, is also a reference to what has 
so far served me as my ‘home’ discipline. 
When one looks at the history of English Studies there has been a noticeable proliferation of 
research interests since the 1970s leading to the redeﬁnition of old and creation of manifold 
new directions for the discipline. On the one hand, such development has greatly increased the 
scope of Anglistics. Also, new links have been forged across disciplines because of a growing 
interest in perspectives of a more general dimension (e.g. gender issues, cultural epistemes, 
ecological concerns). On the other hand, both internal cohesion and cooperation within and 
across disciplines have become a problem. As a counter movement, therefore, attempts have 
been made to create a new basis for communication and cooperation inside Anglistics and across 
disciplines. Making a case for a dialogic Anglistics is such an attempt.  is raises the question 
how this concept compares to other suggestions.
 e two other concepts which have been suggested in recent debates concern the notion of 
interdisciplinarity and that of Kulturwissenschaft (culture studies). Following Joe Moran (2003, 
15), the term interdisciplinarity comprises (1) the creation of “… connections across diﬀerent 
disciplines”, (2) the establishment of “a kind of undisciplined space in the interstices between 
disciplines”, and (3) attempts “… to transcend disciplinary boundaries altogether”. While in the 
ﬁrst instance existing disciplines still wish to keep intact their institutional moorings, the other 
two imply transdisciplinary perspectives, which in the third case may lead to the dissolution of 
existing and the creation of new disciplines. In fact, English Studies itself came into existence 
through a reconﬁguration of disciplines by replacing, for example, Rhetoric, and it may itself 
be subsumed under disciplines such as Cultural-, Communication- or Media Studies in the 
future (cf. Pope 2002, 13).  e other perspective – namely that of culture studies – sees a shared 
interest in a wide-reaching notion of culture as a common basis for many disciplines. Culture, 
here, is deﬁned as a symbolically constructed way of life including material, mental and social 
dimensions (cf. Nünning and Sommer 2004, 17–9).
A dialogic Anglistics shares important concerns with both, yet, it also diﬀers from these concepts 
in signiﬁcant ways. In fact, interdisciplinarity is an important dimension of a dialogic approach, 
and the diﬀerent possibilities for interdisciplinary development as distinguished by Moran all 
feature prominently in my dialogic concept. A dialogic Anglistics, however, also draws attention 
to intradisciplinary plurality and (lack of) contact. According to Pope (2002, 48), the discipline 
of Anglistics has become a “richly variegated” set of approaches. Such plurality can serve as a 
joint resource for the discipline but also lead to its fragmentation. A strengthening of ties within 
the discipline, therefore, is needed to pool plural energies. Such an interest implies a strong 
intradisciplinary focus which I ﬁnd lacking in the concept of interdisciplinarity. Also, my notion 
of dialogue is an idealistic concept aiming for an equal distribution of power. Interdisciplinarity, 
on the other hand, is a descriptive rather than a normative term. It may, therefore, foster a 
dialogic agenda. Yet, it may also perpetuate old or create new hierarchies in the furtherance of 
academic empire building.
Culture as the epistemological foundation for how humans live their lives can serve as a key concept 
for all research disciplines. Yet, the notion of Kulturwissenschaft has been mainly used as an umbrella 
term for the humanities. As a result, it may be too narrow to include disciplines going beyond arts 
faculties. In his book Doing English, Robert Eaglestone (2000, 124 ﬀ.), argues that the time is ripe 
for creating stronger links between English and science, since in recent debates both have expressed 
a strong interest in ecological and ethical perspectives. In the interest of a wide-ranging concept 
of dialogue, I would, therefore, suggest an approach where a distinction is made between culture 
and Kulturwissenschaft, the former inviting reﬂection upon the cultural implications of arts- and 
science-related research to help overcome barriers existing between the two.
 As mentioned above, my understanding of dialogue is a normative concept based on certain key 
convictions. In fact, I see dialogue as an idealistic suggestion for how humans should live their 
lives. In other words, such a concept goes far beyond research-related communication. Let me, 
therefore, brieﬂy introduce what I see as key criteria for dialogue in general before the term is 
applied to the research discipline of Anglistics:
   
(1) First, dialogue is based on the conviction that all forms of human understanding are 
limited, since they are tied to concrete subjects and situated in speciﬁc socio-cultural 
contexts. Moreover, the environments in which humans live are seen as so complex that they 
can only be grasped in parts. Such a concept rules out any claims to absolute knowledge. 
 is condition, of course, also applies to notions o f dialogue which are always created 
within particular socio-cultural formations. 
(2) Secondly, dialogue is seen as a chance to widen one’s scope for reﬂection and action 
through (self)-critical encounters with other positions. Although these positions are also 
limited, they may be limited in diﬀerent ways, thus oﬀering insight going beyond one’s 
existing knowledge base.  e possibility to widen on e’s knowledge base goes hand in hand 
with the belief in a critical and partly autonomous subject which can take responsibility 
for his/her agency. Such a concept is in line with a late-modern understanding of human 
subjectivity (cf. Kögler 2003; Zima 2000), which acknowledges culture’s shaping inﬂuence 
on the self without seeing the latter as fully determined by culture.   
(3) !irdly, a case is made for respectful confrontation with other viewpoints, where 
respect does not stop when other perspectives conﬂict with or call into question one’s own 
convictions. In fact, one of the key aims of dialogue is to foster respect for diﬀerence and 
plurality. Also, diﬀerence can be more or less fundamental. On the one hand, groups may 
share the same key convictions and only diﬀer on less fundamental levels. On the other 
hand, diﬀerence may concern the basic values informing people’s thought and action. For 
the model of dialogue as suggested in this article, respect, of course, also includes the latter. 
Finally, respect for diﬀerence also implies acceptance of unresolved conﬂict.
(4) Fourthly, dialogue is seen as an open and ongoing process where, in Bakhtin’s (1987, 
30) words, “there is no ﬁrst word, and the ﬁnal word has not yet been spoken”. Also, the 
contexts in which dialogue takes place are so complex that the factors to be taken into 
consideration can never be fully determined in advance. Hence, the tried and tested needs 
to be continually reconﬁgured to meet changing situational demands.
(5)  Fifthly, dialogue ideally is a meeting of equal partners. Engaging in dialogue, therefore, 
implies making attempts to equip its participants with equal rights and opportunities. 
T o further this aim, existing power hierarchies need to be addressed, and, when possible, 
replaced by more egalitarian structures. 
(6)  Sixthly, dialogue is shaped by its participants. Hence, as many people as possible should 
be encouraged and enabled to become involved in dialogue to bring in and further develop 
their concerns. 
(7) Finally, dialogue is seen as the interplay of two diﬀerent logics, a constructive one, 
permitting potentially far-reaching coherent action and reﬂection, and a deconstructive 
logic, drawing attention to diﬀerent possibilities and inviting a radical questioning of 
people’s values and convictions. Following Ernesto Laclau (2000, 303), the terms logic of 
equivalence and logic of diﬀerence will be used for these two modes of thinking. For Zima 
(2000, 414 ﬀ.) and Kögler (2003, 86) these two logics should inter-animate and contest 
each other in a continuing debate. Within this debate, one of the two may prove more 
important at times. Yet, whether one is temporarily preferred over the other is not a matter 
of principle but a decision to be reached through dialogue itself.
 is notion of dialogue goes back to the following c oncepts and approaches.  e belief in the 
contingency of human knowledge and a plea for respectful plus (self)-critical confrontation 
with diﬀerent viewpoints can be found in a post-Gadamerian hermeneutics (cf. Bredella 2002; 
Kögler 1992) and in late-modern approaches to ideology critique (cf. Laclau 2000; Zima 2000). 
Another major inﬂuence is Bakhtin (1987) and his notion of heteroglossia. Bakhtin makes a 
case for dialogue as an open and continuing process, and his concept aims for the inclusion of 
as many diﬀerent  ‘voices’ as possible. Also, his understanding of novel writing is opposed to 
forms of hierarchical thinking, thus including the argument for a meeting of equal partners. 
A distinction between more or less fundamental diﬀerence is made by Zima (1991, 402), who 
contrasts intersubjective with interdiscursive diﬀerence. While intersubjective diﬀerence concerns 
variety within one discursively constructed thought and value system, the latter implies a clash 
of diﬀerent systems. As indicated above, the interplay between the two opposite logics goes back 
to proponents of both hermeneutic (Kögler) and ideology-critical approaches (Laclau, Zima). A 
similar approach can also be found in Bakhtin’s (1987, 272) writings, where a distinction is made 
between centripetal (unifying) and centrifugal (diversifying) forces. Finally, respect for unresolved 
conﬂict is a basic principle in recent research in hermeneutics (cf. Kögler 2003) and ideology 
critique (Zima 2000). Yet, such respect does not mean that no further attempts are made to gain 
a better understanding of the other viewpoint in the interest of ﬁnding new solutions. Dialogue, 
here, includes a continuous search for third places (cf. Kramsch 1993, 233 ﬀ.), where boundaries 
become ﬂuid and concrete possibilites may emerge for cooperation.  
Coming back to Zima’s distinction between intersubjective and interdiscursive dialogue, let me add 
that it oﬀers an important angle for reﬂection upon intra- and interdisciplinary cooperation and 
conﬂict in and beyond English Studies. Discourses represent particular ways of understanding 
and constructing realities. Also, certain academic discourses like positivism, (post-)structuralism, 
constructivism or liberal-humanism can be found within diﬀerent ﬁelds of Anglistics and in 
diﬀerent disciplines.  us, interdisciplinary diﬀerence may be relatively small on a deep-level 
structure when the schools involved belong to the same or a similar discourse community. On 
the other hand, intradisciplinary diﬀerence can be radical when diﬀerent discourse communities 
become involved.
Building on the above-mentioned criteria for dialogue the following characteristics are constitutive 
of a dialogic Anglistics: 
(1) First, such a perspective sees all A/a/nglistics-related inquiry as creating contingent and 
incomplete knowledge. Yet, through (self)-critical and continuing reﬂection upon one’s own 
limitations and through exploration of other viewpoints the knowledge base of the people 
and schools involved can be considerably widened. In other words, a dialogic Anglistics 
views itself as a self-reﬂexive project where the quality of the research largely depends on 
the ability to interact with other viewpoints within, across and beyond disciplines. 
(2) Secondly, a dialogic Anglistics is always in the making, and with reference to the two 
opposite logics both wider-reaching and situation-speciﬁc solutions need to be found and 
continuously reconﬁgured to meet both ‘global’ challenges and local needs and interests. 
Seeing the two logics as equally important also implies that in the light of certain 
contextual requirements the partners involved may opt either for a phase of consolidation 
or diversiﬁcation. 
(3) !irdly, a dialogic Anglistics not only shows respect for diﬀerence but also cultivates 
plurality to create a rich basis for mutual enlightenment. T o further such a project, an 
egalitarian approach is suggested which in ideal terms gives diﬀerent individuals and groups 
in English Studies equal possibilities to bring in and develop their interests. I am aware that 
this is a utopian concept which may be in stark contrast to existing disciplinary and social 
hierarchies. Also, Anglistics does not possess the socio-political power to implement such 
change on a large scale. Yet, in the light of my professional experience I strongly believe in 
possibilities for developing more egalitarian structures both within and between research 
communities and in the learning environments where our teaching takes place.
Of course, this is one notion of dialogue among others. For example, in its hermeneutic orientation 
my concept follows Gadamer’s rather than Habermas’ notion of dialogue. While Habermas 
(1971) uncouples his ideal conditions for dialogue from real-life situations, the concept of 
dialogue as advocated in this article critically confronts ideals with realities. In other words, 
while in the case of Habermas the ideal conditions are not subject to critical questioning, a post-
Gadamerian approach dialogically links ideals and realities to question and transforms both in 
the light of the other. Also, a distinction needs to be made between normative and descriptive 
notions of dialogue. For the proponents of normative approaches, dialogue is informed by and 
oriented towards particular values. On the other hand, dialogue has been discussed in more 
descriptive terms as any conversation between at least two partners in communication or any 
meeting of two diﬀerent logics. Here, a central focus is on what speakers or writers need to take 
into consideration to ensure that their messages reach their intended target addressees. In fact, I 
see both directions as central for the success of dialogue. While normative concepts draw attention 
to the ideals behind notions of dialogue, the other focus shifts attention to – in a linguistic sense 
– pragmatic concerns without which communication cannot take place in intended ways.   
 In the following, this concept of dialogue will be applied to what I see as one of the central issues 
for ELT in a new Europe. In fact, attention will be drawn to the highly controversial debate on 
educational standards, where a clash between radically diﬀerent notions of language learning has 
become noticeable. Inspired by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages 
(2004), attempts have been made to homogenize achievement standards for European countries, 
the emphasis being on empirically testable language skills. On the other hand, such a concept has 
met with ﬁerce opposition from those viewing language learning as inextricably linked to wider-
reaching educational perspectives. In German-speaking countries the major reference point in 
this controversy is the term Bildungsstandards (educational standards). While those interested 
in measurable output have claimed this term for their project, the other group has pointed 
to fundamental diﬀerences between education and standardization as objectives for language 
learning. For them, educational standards is a misnomer, which at a ﬁrst glance seems to include 
both poles, yet, at closer inspection leaves very little space for educational perspectives. 
From my dialogic angle, neither of these perspectives is to be treated as superior to the other 
in principle. On the contrary, each of them deserves equal attention in an open-ended debate, 
where they can mutually question, complement and enrich each other in the interest of both 
wide-reaching and local solutions. Yet, treating them as equal must not be mistaken for total 
relativity. Adopting a dialogic stance also implies reﬂection upon how dialogue-friendly these 
two orientations are.
  e CEF marks an attempt to foster European integration in the ﬁeld of language learning. 
According to Keith Morrow (2004, 6) the document originates from attempts in the early 1990s 
to deﬁne “purely descriptive” common achievement standards to facilitate mutual recognition 
of language-related qualiﬁcations throughout Europe. As a result diﬀerent achievement levels 
were deﬁned with the help of so-called ‘descriptors’ to provide a common basis for assessing 
competence levels.  ese descriptors are mainly rela ted to the so-called four basic skills (reading, 
listening, speaking and writing). Also, criteria have been developed for grammar and vocabulary-
related learning domains. 
Yet, the CEF also addresses educational perspectives for foreign language learning going beyond a 
narrow conception of language competence.  e docume nt also makes a case for linking language 
learning to developing intercultural awareness and mediation in the interest of a democratic 
agenda for a new Europe (cf. CEF 2004, 6 ﬀ., 103 ﬀ.).  is also includes positive assessment 
of “imaginative and artistic uses of language” (ibid., 56), and of critical abilities permitting a 
diﬀerentiated understanding of texts and issues in a foreign language context (ibid., 69). Finally, 
language learning is seen as connected to a form of personality development grounded in a 
variety of ‘existential’ competences, which potentially are highly conducive to a dialogic agenda. 
Such competences comprise “openness towards, and interest in new experiences, other persons, 
ideas, peoples, societies and cultures”, “[a] willingness to relativise one’s own cultural viewpoint 
and cultural value-system” or personality factors such as “ﬂexibility, … self conﬁdence, [and] self 
esteem” (ibid., 105-6) plus “a high level of intrinsic motivation” (ibid., 161). Frank Heyworth 
(2004, 16), therefore, concludes that “the CEF provides a useful reminder to language teachers 
to extend the range of their teaching beyond the narrowly linguistic”.
On a general level, I would, therefore, see the CEF as an attempt to bring together standardization 
and a humanistic form of education in the interest of both generally acceptable achievement 
standards and democratic citizenship in a multicultural Europe. While in the ﬁrst instance the 
emphasis is on standardization, the second area includes awareness of and respect for cultural 
diversity and (inter)-cultural exchange on national, regional and diﬀerent social levels (cf. CEF 
2004, 6 & 103). Such an approach seems in line with my dialogic agenda which also stresses 
the importance of a homogenizing (standardization) and a diversifying logic (respect for cultural 
plurality).  us, on a general level the CEF can ser ve as a reference point for both tendencies. Yet, 
on more concrete levels the diversifying logic loses in importance. Concomitantly, the democratic 
and cultural learning aims at best recede into the background, while a narrow understanding 
of language competence with a focus on the four skills takes central place. Indeed, the term 
educational standards can be rather misleading on these levels, since the educational dimension 
has widely disappeared. Following Becker (2004, 17), I will, therefore, speak of achievements 
standards, where standardization is suggested for the above-mentioned areas of linguistic 
competence. Yet, I do not intend to give up the term educational standards altogether. In fact, I 
see the term as a steady reminder to keep in sight both dimensions and to constructively combine 
them within a dialogic agenda.
  ere is a lot to be said in favour of common achiev ement standards.
1
 Indeed, such standards 
provide clear guidelines for certiﬁcation within and across countries. Also, such standards permit 
greater transparency for learners, teachers and administrators. As a consequence, diﬀerent 
competence levels can be identiﬁed more easily. Such an app Anglistics as a Dialogic Discipline
 roach can help locate those learning areas that students still need to work on if they want 
to make further progress, thus giving people a clear idea of further learning steps. Moreover, 
such standards are formulated as ‘can-do statements’. In other words, they focus on learner 

strengths rather than on their deﬁciencies. Such a concept can invite a reorientation where 
language teaching is primarily focussed on the learners’ mistakes.  is in turn can strengthen 
the students’ self-esteem when learning foreign languages. Finally, these can-do statements 
concern communicative abilities, thus suggesting a communicative rather than a grammar-based 
orientation for language learning.
 e CEF has been deﬁned as an open-ended project by some of its proponents. Morrow (2004, 
1), for example, points out that “the Common European Framework is not ﬁxed in stone”, thus 
advocating its redeﬁnition in diﬀerent educational contexts. Also, its implementation can be 
organized along more or less dialogic lines. In Austria, for example, in a ﬁrst step, the ministry 
responsible for education invited the Austrian Language Centre in Graz
2
 and a group of teachers 
to discuss the CEF and to translate its criteria and descriptors into concrete materials for classroom 
use. Although the CEF as such was not really subject to critical questioning, the administrators 
and teachers involved at least were given space to bring in ideas and to revise them in the light of 
concrete classroom projects. Finally, the CEF need not lead to a predominantly functional and 
pragmatic orientation for language learning. In Slovenia, for example, the CEF has been read 
as conﬁrmation of the importance of a humanistic, intercultural and communicative direction 
for language learning. In line with such a concept, a reader-related understanding of literature 
learning still plays a crucial role in Slovenian curricula and school-leaving exams. In fact, Meta 
Grosman has been a main inﬂuence here. In her work as researcher, teacher, teacher trainer and 
educational reformer she has shown how humanistic aims and common guidelines for language 
learning can be successfully integrated.
From a dialogic perspective, achievement standards, however, do become problematic where 
they are suggested as the sole or dominant basis for learner assessment. Where ultimately only 
those results count as valid information on language proﬁciency which can be empirically tested 
on a grand scale, language learning is narrowed down to what can be unambiguously assessed. 
Such assessment may invite a teaching-to-the-test, which widely ignores educational objectives 
such as empathy, creativity, critical competence, frustration tolerance, intrinsic motivation or self 
esteem, since all of them defy exact measurement. Furthermore, sheer concentration on what 
is clearly testable can create ﬁxed hierarchies among areas of, and those concerned with, foreign 
language learning. As already mentioned, such an approach gives what is testable priority over 
other areas. As a backwash eﬀect, teachers will lose most of their power to co-shape the ends 
of language learning. In line with Schön’s (1983) notion of technical rationality, experts from 
outside deﬁne general solutions which are then to be implemented in a prescribed way. 
 As mentioned above, Morrow (2004, 6) claims that one of the aims of the CEF has been to deﬁne 
“purely descriptive” achievement standards. From a dialogic and culture-related perspective this 
comment merits particular attention. In my view, “purely descriptive” suggests that such standards 
are untainted by any bias (pure), by just describing an object (linguistic competence), which can 
be deﬁned in no uncertain ways. A dialogic perspective, however, is based on the assumption that 

phenomena like language are so complex that they can only be ‘described’ in parts.  us, what is 
left out becomes as important as what is included, which renders impossible sheer concentration 
on the quantitatively testable. Also, such a perspective views all understanding as always inﬂuenced 
by certain interests and values, no matter whether they are stated explicitly or not. Moreover, any 
attempt to construct a programme is seen as a cultural act with manifold implications for those 
concerned. From such a perspective, achievement standards, for example, have been criticized 
as indicative of a market-oriented, capitalist programme (cf. Barkowski 2005). What counts 
for such an orientation is measurable output in the interest of certain attainment targets. In 
education, these targets are related to competences that increase the likelihood of economic 
success without questioning the interests of a capitalist programme.
What is missing in such a programme is a form of humanism, which – in Edward Said’s (2003, 
21–2) words – stands for “a process of unending disclosure, discovery, self-criticism and liberation”. 
In a similar vein, the economic scientist and philosopher Amartya Sen (2001) makes a case for 
seeing human freedom and not capital accumulation as the principle aim for human existence. 
For Sen, freedom is a substantive concept based on speciﬁc capabilities. So far, however, such 
capabilities have been deﬁned in rather vague terms by those concerned about the educational 
dimension of foreign language learning. Here, ELT experts could learn from colleagues working 
in other disciplines (economic science, pedagogy, philosophy), where eﬀorts have been made to 
further deﬁne such ability (cf. Elliot 2005; Nussbaum 2000). Also, the work done by those in 
favour of achievement standards can serve as a stimulus to create something equally elaborate 
for educational objectives. Of course, these objectives would spring from a diﬀerent logic, which 
would not go for the easily testable. Yet, an elaborate ensemble of categories plus descriptors 
would deﬁnitely help to gain a clearer picture of dialogically motivated educational objectives 
and how they are achieved and redeﬁned in ELT-classroom contexts.
In my view, the debate on educational standards results from a clash of two radically diﬀerent 
positions. On the one hand, one can ﬁnd a positivist, output-oriented concept of language 
competence bracketing out all those areas of language use which defy unambiguous assessment. 
On the other hand, language is seen as steeped in socio-cultural values and as the medium 
through which diﬀerent value systems are constructed, re-activated and redeﬁned. While the ﬁrst 
concept seems in favour of a top-down approach where experts deﬁne the relevant knowledge, 
the latter approach has argued for a negotiation of meanings in and through wide-reaching 
dialogue. Whether and how the two can be reconciled has become a major issue for ELT . One 
solution is to establish a clear hierarchy, where one perspective marks the dominant pole. Yet, 
also more dialogic solutions could be found. One possibility is a mere co-existence of both, 
where each pole is weighted equally, and where communicative competence is seen as a complex 
phenomenon including clearly testable and value-related dimensions. A third solution would 
be in line with my understanding of interdiscursive dialogue. Here, both positions would see 
themselves as culture-bound discourses informed by certain values. Furthermore, they would 
use the other position to (self)-critically and respectfully reﬂect upon one’s own and the other 
perspective to learn more about the complexities involved in language learning. Respect for the 
other implies that the legitimacy of both projects would be recognized. What is testable would be 
tested and what goes beyond such a perspective would be given equal attention. Depending on 
local needs and interests one of the approaches may – temporarily – be preferred to the other. Yet, 
this would not rule out the possibility to try a diﬀerent approach. In fact, it is the third option 
which I would prefer.  

฀