Applied linguistics: no ‘bookish theoric’
THE NEW CRITIQUE OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS
Widdowson’s critique
It is possible that the theory espoused by Fairclough, whether modernist or post-modernist, is too powerful, in the sense we have already encountered, of being non-falsifiable. This is basically the criticism made by Widdowson in his critique of critical applied linguistics, more specifically critical discourse analysis (1998: 136–51).
In his critique Widdowson comments on three key texts all published in the 1990s. These are Caldas-Coulthard and Coulthard (1996), Fairclough (1995) and Hodge and Kress (1993). These texts all speak to the need to develop a socially responsible theory of language, committed to social justice. (Widdowson is aware of the difficulty that so praiseworthy a cause presents to those seeking to evaluate it: they render themselves easy targets as enemies of goodness, truth, justice and so on.) He points out that theory, however embryonic, is therefore crucial to the validity of the social justice project. ‘It is rightly recognized in all of these books that without such theoretical support, the particular analyses (no matter how ingenious and well-intentioned) reduce to random comment of an impressionistic kind’ (Widdowson 1998: 137). Yet in spite of the recognition of the need for an explanatory theory which is open to falsification, ‘Fairclough and his critical colleagues’, as Widdowson sees it, ‘expose how language is exploited in the covert insinuation of ideological influence’ to their satisfaction ‘by the careful selection and partial interpretation of whatever linguistic features suit their own ideological position and disregarding the rest’ (Widdowson: 146).
Widdowson’s attack adds force to our own conclusion that what critical discourse analysis (and indeed critical applied linguistics) represents is an offshoot of post modernism, masquerading as modernity. After all, as we have already noted, the boundaries between the two movements are vague and ill-defined. Widdowson takes Roger Fowler (1981) to task for his cavalier attitude towards theory; for Fowler theory is ‘only instrumental, a tool-kit for expedient use, a descriptive device’ (Widdowson: 150) in the critical pursuit.
How, then, is ‘critical’ being used in critical discourse analysis, critical applied linguistics and so on? Hammersley explains the use as follows:
[I]t implies an abandonment of any constraint on the evaluation of the discourse and contexts that are studied. A central feature of both linguistics and much social science in the twentieth century has been a rejection of normative approaches in favor of an exclusive concern with factual inquiry … What the term ‘critical’ generally refers to … is forms of research which assume: that we can only understand society as a totality and that in producing knowledge of society critical research reveals what is obscured by ideology, such ideology being pervasive and playing an essential role in preserving the status quo. (1996: 4–5)
It is not difficult to understand the appeal of such a model which unites theory and practice and at the same time is ameliorative in purpose, to an applied discipline such as applied linguistics. And in a later condemnation, Widdowson outs critical linguists for providing:
contexts of their own devising which then regulate the interpretation of textual features as appropriate. And an acceptance of this interpretation depends on the reader being co-operative on their terms. Thus one partial reading is replaced by another … It would seem more sensible to look at how different contextual and co-operative conditions give rise to alternative discourses devised for the same text. (Widdowson 2000: 22)
