This article draws attention to a widening and unproductive disconnect between two sets of scholarly activities seeking to understand the Englishization of Nordic universities, and, more generally, the effects of globalization on language. While these scholarly activities are not internally homogenous, they are referred to here as “policy and practice.” Contrasting examples drawn from policy documents and linguistic practices in the context of Englishized Nordic universities, it is shown that the level of policy assumes a monolithic and essentialized understanding of language whereas the level of practice also incorporates elements of constructionism and hybridity. The article then goes on to argue that the difference between the two levels is by no means clear as participants on the practice level also appear to orient to monolithic and essentialized understandings of language as they are construed for policy purposes. It concludes by arguing that scholarly activities at each level — policy and practice — need to a greater extent to recognize the relevance of both levels in order to advance sociolinguistic theory in a holistic manner.