Applied linguistics: no ‘bookish theoric’
THE NEW CRITIQUE OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS
Critical applied linguistics
But there are further treatments of ‘critical’ which range more widely in applied linguistics. I shall consider here views expressed by Pennycook (1994a, 1994b) and Rampton (1997). First Pennycook, who approaches discourse analysis from a Foucauldian position, argues that the traditional applied linguistic approach (which Widdowson would represent) and the critical discourse analysis approach of Fairclough are incommensurable. As both are with the approach he advocates, which:
offers a number of possibilities for engaging critically with language and meaning without falling into some of the materialist or deterministic pitfalls that critical discourse analysis can present. Like critical discourse analysis, it locates the con text of language use, the speakers and their intention in a wider social, cultural and political context than the view common to discourse analysis in applied linguistics. This, I believe, is a crucial step in opposing the discourse of pragmatism in applied linguistics and in acknowledging the political in second language education. (Pennycook 1994b: 133)
Such an approach, which turns on its head both the applied linguistics and the critical discourse analysis view of the relation between language and discourse by positing that discourses produce rather than reflect social reality, Pennycook locates within postmodernism. He explicitly advocates this admittedly relativist stance for applied linguistics on the grounds that it opens the way to a more effective involvement with the major stakeholders.
Writing of the teaching of English as an International Language (EIL) he claims that the approach he advocates can deal with issues seriously rather than following critical discourse analysis, which deals with ‘serious issues’ (such as crime, abortion and so on). And dealing with issues seriously enables him to make the link both with language being learnt and with the lives of his students (Pennycook 1994a: 132–3).
Pennycook’s solution is clearly not directly ameliorative; but neither is it one of despair, unlike the extreme forms of postmodernism. His hope is that ‘while we cannot know ourselves or the world around us in any objective fashion, we nevertheless need to ask how it is we come to think as we do’ (ibid: 134).
However, Pennycook is unhappy about the hegemonic effect of applied linguistics on language teaching and in his book (1994a) he makes a case for what he terms ‘critical pedagogy’:
To teach critically implies a particular understanding not only of education in general but also of the critical educator … In order to pursue critical pedagogies of English, then, we need a reconceptualization of the role for teachers and applied linguists that does away with the theory-practice divide and views teacher/applied linguists as politically engaged critical educators. (1994a: 303)
Not so very far from Fairclough after all, it would appear. And it is all very well to make common cause with the need to bring theory and practice together but what exactly does that mean for teaching (or indeed any other application) in the practice of institutions? It is almost as though the whole of applied linguistics was about theory making in some kind of vacuum where there is only virtual learning and teaching and where what the applied linguist does is to engage in debates, each one different from the next, with no point of commonality, all incommensurable, and lacking even the inadequate tool-kit of critical discourse analysis.
The influence of CAL is pervasive and can be unhelpful. In the following extract from a book review (Djité 1996) what becomes clear is that CAL leads the author under review to a kind of impotent inertia, critiquing the present and at a loss about the future. That is the danger inherent in modish CAL:
The epilogue to the book [Rubagumya 1994] takes the issue of ‘critical language awareness’ even further, into the realm of the prevailing ideology in language policy and language planning in Africa. In spite of the paradoxical language attitudes of African populations towards the languages of the former colonizers, the author questions the ‘common sense’, ‘pragmatism’ and ‘wisdom’ of the decision of independent African nations to retain these languages. He argues that, if English, French and, to a lesser extent, Portuguese are useful to a lucky few (the elite), they are neither relevant nor useful to the majority who are thus locked out of the democratic process, because they cannot fully participate in the political and economic life of their own country. He comes to the conclusion that the continued defense and promotion of this language policy in Africa can only benefit the political elite who, by so doing, aim to retain their political an economic power over the masses, and the former colonizers who want to maintain their influence over African countries through their language and technology. However, the author is not advocating a rejection of these international languages; rather, he would like to see their place and role re-assessed critically in order to empower the African people. (Djité 1996: 77)
This is confusing. Is the reviewer agreeing or disagreeing with the author? And what exactly is the author advocating for an African language policy? Are African languages to replace the former colonial ones? Apparently not. Then the language situation should remain as it is but people be made critical of it? Is that likely to improve their proficiency or indeed encourage them to become more literate, more proficient language users? The remedy seems muddled, though it certainly is critical.
