An Introduction to Applied Linguistics

4.5 A CAL view: ethics again?
Critical applied linguistics (CAL) brings into applied linguistics a postmodern view
of knowledge and of the ways in which it is socially constructed (see Chapter 7). CAL
rejects all grand theories of language in use such as the inevitability of English as a
world language, proffering ‘scepticism towards all metanarratives’ (Lyotard 1984). It
outs traditional applied linguistics as an enterprise which is hegemonic and has never
been neutral (Rampton 1997: 20).
128
An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
02 pages 001-202:Layout 1 31/5/07 09:31 Page 128

---

Such critiques have of course long been expressed by traditional applied linguists,
most vividly by those who position themselves ideologically as neo-Marxists. But, at
its most sophisticated, CAL, while accepting the role that larger social and economic
and political systems play in power relations, argues that their impact on everyday
experience cannot so easily be predicted (Pennycook 1994b).
We now re-examine the first six of these projects from the point of view of critical
applied linguistics. The seventh, as a product of CAL, is not discussed here. What
might be the approach of CAL to the six exemplar projects we have described in this
chapter?
4.5.1 Language-programme evaluation in South India
A CAL analysis of this project might begin with questions related to the extent of the
involvement of all stakeholders in the evaluation, noting, for example, that students
were not involved and that in all cases the final arbiters were two external judges,
both of whom had all the credentials of neo-colonial attitudes. Next, the four college
activities would be considered, and it would be pointed out that the compulsory link
to a British funding body, reinforced by the involvement of British institutions (in -
cluding the British Council and British, or British-controlled, publishers) removed
all aspects of choice from local players. And finally the need for English language,
which these projects were supposedly satisfying, would itself be shown to be
questionable, in that it was a constructed need, or could so be interpreted; that there
were other options (e.g. English not tied to a British–English model and to UK
resources, Tamil, Hindi) that the acceptance of the funding structure did not permit.
Perhaps the severest criticism would be reserved for the two evaluators. In
addition to the doubts mentioned above about their allegiances, it would also be
noted that they took no responsibility for querying the guidelines of their evaluation
brief and as such themselves contributed to the continuation of the power structure
within which these Indian colleges, their students and staff, were locked into a client
role. In short the CAL position would be that since the fundamental neo-colonial
relationship was ethically wrong, no tinkering with the surface features would
produce any results of interest or value.
4.5.2 Second-language literacy study
To an extent CAL takes an individualist approach to the solution of language prob -
lems. With regard to the bilingual literacy project CAL would therefore maintain
that judgements based on group performance are uninteresting and that there can be
no exception to the principles of individual rights and individual access. As such,
there would be strong support for the provision of first-language literacy as a means
of ensuring cognitive growth and as a bridge to the acquisition of literacy in the
second language. The doubts expressed by the project’s applied linguists would
therefore be dismissed as once again hegemonic, reflecting a patronising view as to
the role and superior efficacy of a language such as English.
The professionalising of applied linguists 129
02 pages 001-202:Layout 1 31/5/07 09:31 Page 129

---

As can be seen, in the cases of the examples of the language-programme evaluation
and the second-language literacy study, CAL would offer what might be regarded as
an idealistic ethical view, taking no account either of the availability of resources or
of the social facts of for example the position in the world (in India, or in Australia)
of English. And so in spite of its claims to be socially concerned, CAL appears to
be individually oriented. This puts a question mark against its role within applied
linguistics as it has been practised, since that practice has always been socially aware,
context sensitive, attempting to bring together what is known about language and
local realities. CAL looks much more like the abstraction we expect in theoretical
linguistics. But of course the bottom line of CAL is that it does raise the fundamental
question within applied linguistics, which is whether its traditional practice has in
fact been misguided.
4.5.3 Pedagogical grammar
The practice of providing in a pedagogical grammar ‘tightly controlled practice in
writing sentences’ would be derided by CAL as making discourse (or grammar) part
of language rather than looking ‘at how meanings are a product of social and cultural
relationships and then (turns) to see how these may be realised in language’ (Penny -
cook 1994b: 116).
Unless, therefore, Mitchell’s (1990) use of the sentences:
1. Mary is as tall as her father.
2. Mary and her father are identical in height.
is deliberately intended to make the familiar unfamiliar by locating ‘the context
of language use, the speakers and their intentions in a wider social, cultural, and
political context’, then the CAL conclusion would be that pedadogical grammar is
simply giving instruction in how sentences can be put together.
Is this fair? Mitchell’s appeal to logical, semantic and pragmatic meanings as well
as lexicogrammatical resources suggests that in his view pedagogical grammars are
offering explanations as to why things are said, not just how things are said. Whether
he is correct or not, there is of course a further somewhat obvious point to make
against so strong a CAL position and this is that the sole purpose of pedagogical
grammars can be claimed to be to set out the how: the why is quite deliberately left
for other areas of language teaching.
4.5.4 Workplace communication
The CAL requirement to make ‘the familiar unfamiliar by locating the context
of language use, the speakers and their intentions in a wider social, cultural, and
political context’ would at first blush suggest that the work described under work -
place communication meets the CAL criteria. Gumperz et al. is based on an analysis
of ‘recordings of genuine examples of … conversations and meetings … to find out
how each side interprets what has happened in the conversation’ (1979: 9).
130
An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
02 pages 001-202:Layout 1 31/5/07 09:31 Page 130

---

This does seem to meet the CAL requirement. The film and its accompanying
material are intended to facilitate advice and teaching in workplace communication
skills. They are based on real conversations and interviews, such as the college
librarian interview, and take account of feedback from both sides of their interpret -
ations and of what they thought went wrong in terms of inferencing.
It appears that this approach may meet the kind of awareness that Pennycook
is looking for. Indeed, perhaps because workplace communication has always been
heavily influenced by critical discourse analysis, of all four examples discussed this
one is the nearest as it stands to the aims of CAL.
Can we ignore the assumed stipulation that the interview quoted must be held in
English, on the grounds that the candidate is likely to be fully fluent in his variety of
English? But this is precisely the point: his variety of English! What is lacking – and
what CAL might point to – is that in terms of the wider social, cultural and political
context, not only are such Asian migrants disadvantaged, but no account is taken of
differential communicative competences. What is needed surely is that the Interview
Board contain at least one member who is a speaker of the Asian English spoken by
the candidate.
And yet, even here, on its own home ground, doesn’t CAL go a little far? As we
saw with the second-language literacy study, CAL appears to make claims on the
basis of individual requirements. How possible is flexibility for an interview panel
which needs consistency across candidates, not all of whom are likely to speak the
candidate’s variety of English? Furthermore, the post under interview presumably
needs someone who can fully control the varieties of English in use in the college
library. It is unlikely that in the context of a London borough, the composition of
the student body would contain only speakers of the candidate’s variety of Asian
English. It therefore seems not unfair that the interview panel should, even in directly,
make judgements about the candidate’s control over their variety of English which
they, not unreasonably, take for granted?