English Linguistics Is Not Linguistics: why HEC postgraduate policy concerns?

The Pakistan Higher Education Commission (HEC) has recently issued new rules (2025) for MPhil and PhD programmes in English studies. According to the notification, universities are required to offer degrees solely under two titles: English Literature and English Linguistics. It is important to note that fields such as Applied Linguistics, TESOL, or English Language Studies have been relegated to the status of “associated programmes” when compared with HEC national curriculum (2017).

On paper, this notification aims to introduce standardisation. In practice, it reveals contradictions within Pakistan’s higher education system — and demonstrates how easily different disciplines have been merged into a single category called “English.” If we compare this notification with the 2017 national curriculum, the new framework appears less clear and more confusing. The 2017 curriculum made a careful effort to distinguish degree titles. It approved MPhil and PhD programmes in Literature, Linguistics, and ELT, and offered separate schemes of study for each. This clarity not only reflected disciplinary distinctions but also aligned with international practices. Students, faculty, and employers could easily understand what each degree signified. By contrast, the current notification merges these distinctions into a narrower set of titles. The question remains: why reduce clarity at a time when disciplines are growing and global standards are so crucial?

The title 'English Linguistics' is particularly problematic. By definition, it implies the study of only the English language. However, linguistics is the scientific examination of human language in all its forms. Applied Linguistics deals with English language teacher training, curriculum development, multilingual classrooms, and language policy. For a multilingual country like Pakistan, limiting the scope of linguistics to just English is not only restrictive but also a missed opportunity to meet urgent educational and social needs.

A look at the websites of most Pakistani higher education institutions clearly demonstrates that they are already offering MPhil degrees titled 'English Linguistics'. These titles, while compliant with current policy, do not accurately reflect the discipline of linguistics as understood globally. Instead, they tend to mislead students and employers alike by implying a narrow focus on English rather than the broader study of language. This issue is not merely a matter of semantics. Degree titles influence how qualifications are perceived abroad. For example, employers in the UAE, China, Singapore, and across Europe frequently advertise for expertise in Applied Linguistics or TESOL. A Pakistani degree in English Linguistics may require explanation, or worse, may not be regarded as equivalent. For students seeking doctoral studies or international teaching opportunities, this can present significant barriers.

The compulsory courses highlight the same issue. For example, a title like Advanced Research Methods in English Studies makes sense for literary research, but not for linguistics, which requires different tools: phonetics, corpus design, statistics, and psycholinguistic methods. By forcing both fields into the single entity of “English Studies,” the framework risks obscuring rather than clarifying disciplinary identities.

Our academic publishing culture reflects the same tension. Many Pakistani journals combine “literature and linguistics” within a single scope. This appears to be a practical compromise, but it contrasts with international practice, where journals are discipline-specific: Applied Linguistics (Oxford), TESOL Quarterly, and Language Teaching Research focus on language. This difference underscores how our structures — in departments, curricula, and journals — often merge two fields that the rest of the world treats separately.

Globally, the pattern remains consistent. For example, universities such as Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, MIT, Toronto, Melbourne, and Singapore have independent departments of Linguistics or Applied Linguistics. Even in South Asia, Jawaharlal Nehru University in India and Dhaka University in Bangladesh follow this model. The term “English Linguistics” is seldom used. Instead, degree titles clearly indicate the disciplinary identity of the programme.

In Pakistan, the situation is mixed. Public universities like Quaid-i-Azam, Punjab, Karachi, and Peshawar remain largely focused on literature, with linguistics often limited to a few courses. However, the demand for linguistics and applied linguistics is increasing both locally and globally. Private institutions such as UCP, UMT, UOL, Riphah, Air University, and BNU (to name a few) now offer full-fledged MPhil and PhD programmes in linguistics or applied linguistics. Their research includes TESOL, discourse studies, and language policy — areas directly linked to both international practice and Pakistan’s local needs. By not recognising these as independent titles, the new framework risks undermining the progress these universities have made so far.

HEC’s concern for consistency is valid. Standardisation is important. However, it should not come at the expense of clarity or international recognition. A better balance can be realised by maintaining national consistency while recognising Linguistics, Applied Linguistics, and TESOL as valid postgraduate titles, alongside English Literature.

The 2017 curriculum moved towards clarity, but the current policy appears to have taken a step backwards. It is time to recognise that linguistics and applied linguistics are not merely subdivisions of English studies but independent disciplines. They warrant their own degree titles, dedicated research training, and separate departments.

As an applied linguist and TESOL practitioner, I see the notification not as a setback but as an opportunity. It should prompt us to think more clearly about how to differentiate literature from linguistics and how to allocate the appropriate academic space for each at postgraduate level. Our students deserve degree titles that genuinely reflect their training, our faculty deserve recognition for their expertise, and our universities need policies that support — not obscure — disciplinary identities. Until linguistics is separated from the shadow of English studies, Pakistan will continue to confuse its students and diminish its graduates’ international reputation. The rest of the world has already moved on. It is high time we do the same.