Research

Understanding the Fondations of the Current Civilization through the Nature of Persons and the Earth

This line of research begins with a diagnostic and exploratory examination of historical and contemporary conditions, prior to the identification of any social axioms.

Humanity has experienced countless economic and political systems since the dawn of civilization; yet none have proven perfect, including the current models of modern capitalism and mass democracy. Today, we face critical challenges: the polarization of wealth, the devaluation of individual dignity, the deterioration of our survival environment, and the deepening conflict between social groups—problems so serious that they can no longer be absorbed or compensated for by nature itself.

In this context, we consider a possible parallel with the social conditions of fourth-century B.C. Athens, the historical cradle of Hellenism. Modern Western civilization has developed upon a cultural foundation shaped by the interaction of Hellenistic reason and Christian faith. This inquiry does not approach these traditions through their ideologies or religious doctrines, nor does it seek to define new principles from them. Rather, it examines them from an external and structural standpoint, as historical configurations through which the given conditions of social coexistence may be observed.

This research does not aim to derive social axioms from social analysis, nor to define them through human interpretation. Sociom, as understood here, are not products of belief, consensus, or theory, but self-evident conditions inherent in social existence. Analytical inquiry serves only to remove obscurities and distortions, allowing what is already given by the natural attributes of society to become visible. In this sense, the present study is preparatory: it precedes sociom not by creating them, but by making their recognition possible.

Rethinking English Sentence Structure

Have you ever noticed that the traditional English sentence formula — Subject + Verb + (Object) — is logically flawed in its construction? The elements it combines are not drawn from the same grammatical plane.

• The terms subject and object describe functions performed by noun phrases.

• The term verb, however, refers to a part of speech, not a syntactic role.

This inconsistency is like being asked to describe the structure of a building and answering:

“It consists of pillars, walls, a roof, and wood.”
While pillars, walls, and roof describe structural roles, wood describes material — not a structural component.
In the same way, "verb" in the S+V+O formula misaligns conceptually with subject and object.

🔁 POES as a Solution

To resolve this and other contradictions, we propose an alternative framework:
Predicate Oriented English Speaking (POES).

POES offers a consistently structured model that redefines sentence elements based on their functional roles within predicate structures — not their part-of-speech labels.

📌 Example: The Problem of Verb Inconsistency

Take the word “reading”, traditionally labeled a verb (gerund or participle). Yet its role varies widely:

• Reading is fun. → (Subject)

• I read every day. → (Predicate Verb)

• I like reading. → (Object)

• I am reading. → (Predicate Adjective/Complement)

Although all forms are derived from a verb, they serve different functions and are inconsistently labeled. The term verb in this context loses precision, leading to confusion in grammatical analysis and teaching.

🧩 What POES Offers

We have been isolating such inconsistencies in traditional grammar (T-PEGD) and developing systematic solutions based on the principles of POES — which centers all structure around the predicate as the topic carrier (TC), and classifies components based on function, not form.

This approach restores logical consistency to grammar description,
and provides a more transparent and accessible model — especially for learners.

✅ This version:

• Highlights the core inconsistency in T-PEGD

• Clarifies your analogy with stronger precision

• Introduces POES as a logically superior framework

• Leads smoothly from critique to proposal

Clarity and Confidence for All Speakers

As globalization increasingly trends toward fragmentation, the role of English as a shared medium of communication faces new pressures. Once informally anchored by reference points such as Received Pronunciation (RP) and General American (GA), English now exhibits accelerating diversity that raises concerns about mutual intelligibility.

This tension—whether diversity and intelligibility are incompatible or structurally reconcilable—defines a central debate in the future of global Englishes. Building on current scholarship, this research examines how ongoing linguistic shifts affect learners, educators, and users seeking clarity and confidence in multilingual environments.

Rather than relying solely on prescriptivism, descriptivism, or pluralism—approaches that each encounter limitations in addressing global inclusivity—it proposes English Shared (ES), a principled framework designed to sustain intelligibility while accommodating global variation.

Reflecting Braj Kachru’s Three Circles model, ES adopts a concentric structure: Core, Flexible, and Evolution. The Core layer establishes shared structural principles; the Flexible layer accommodates systematic variation; the Evolution layer reflects global linguistic development. ES is grounded in the Core of ES (CES)—a minimal set of shared principles—and in Predicate Oriented English Speaking (POES), a meaning-based grammatical framework that promotes structural clarity and speaker confidence.

Rather than imposing a single standard, ES aligns with David Crystal’s vision of a World Standard Spoken English (WSSE). Its principled yet adaptive design invites dialogue across education, communication, research, and policymaking to support the sustainable evolution of world Englishes as a global resource in the era of AI.