An Introduction to Applied Linguistics

4.6 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 prag -
matism 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
Applied linguistics: no ‘bookish theoric’ 143
02 pages 001-202:Layout 1 31/5/07 09:31 Page 143

---

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’, which we have already discussed in Chapters 2 and 6:
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 reconceptualisation 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 colonisers,
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 defence 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 colonisers 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
144
An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
02 pages 001-202:Layout 1 31/5/07 09:31 Page 144

---

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.