DSpace at VNU: Critical applied linguistic: concerns and domains

TAP CHl KHOAHOC ĐHOGHN, NGOAI NGỬ. T XXIII, số 1. 2007

C R IT IC A L A P P L I E D L IN G U IS T IC S : C O N C E R N S A N D D O M A IN S
Vo Dai Q uang'*'
1, I n t r o d u c t i o n

• T h e roll* o f critical theory

Cntical applic'd liníĩuistics is not y e l a
term that has wkk* currencv. W h at is
Critical Applied Linguistics? Is it an
approiich, a theor>' or a discipline? Simpiv
put, it is a critical apprcMich to applied
linguistics.
Such
an
understanding,
however,
leads
to
several
fu rth er
questions: W h a t is applied linguistics?
W h a t is m e a n t bv V r i t i r a ĩ ’? Is critical
ap plied linguistics moroly th e ad d itio n of
a critical ap pro ach to app lied l i n ^ i s t i c s ?
O r is il so m ethin g m ore? T h e se
q u estio n s a r e still left open for d ifferen t
in te rp re ta tio n s. W ith a view to providing
te n ta tiv e a n s w e rs to th e se q uestions,
th is article is designed a s a sketch of of

w h a t is m e a n t bv critical applied
linguistics. A n um ber of iniporlant
concerns and (|uestion.s th a t (’a n bring us
closer to an undersUinding of w h at is tak en
to be critical applied linpjisLics will be
raised. These concerns have U) do with:

• C ritical ap|)Hod lin^iiĩíiics a s
co n sta n t q u estio n in g of assu m p tio n s

a

• T h e imj)ort«inco of a n e lem o n l of
self reflexivitv in critical work
• T h e role
p referred fu tu re s

of

ethically

a rg u e d

• A n undt»rstanding of critical ap plied
linguistics as fa r inorp l h a n th e su m of
its p arts.
2. C r i t ic a l a p p l i e d l i n g u is tic s c o n c e r n s
A p p l i e d L in g u i s t i c s
To s t a r t w ilh, to th e e x te n t t h a t
critical app lied lingui.stics IS seen a s a

critical approaoh to applied linguistics, it
need s to o p e ra te with
broad view of
app lied linguistics. Applied linguistics,
how ever, h a s been a h a r d d o m a in to
define. T h e L o n g m a n D ictio n a ry o f
A p p lie d L in g u istic s
gives u s
two
derỉiiilionỉ>. 'ih e Aluiỉy Ilf M^cuuil aui\
f o r e i ^ l a n ^ a g e le a rn in g an d te a c h in g '
a n d “th e stu d y of lan g u ag e an d
linguistics in relatio n to p ractical
probloms,
such
as
lexicography,
tra n s la tio n , speech pathoIog>% c l c / ‘ From
th is point of’ view. th e n . WP h a v e two
different dom ains, th e first to do w ith
second o r foreign lan g u ag e teach in g (but,
not,
signifurantlv,
first
la n g u a g e
education), th e second to do w ith
lan g u ag e • rolatod problem s in v ario u s

• T he scope a n d coverage of applied
ling^aistics

• T he notion of p ra x is a s a w av of
going bevond a dirho ton iou s relatio n
b e tw e e n th e o ry a n d p ra c tic e
Different w avs of u n d e r s ta n d in g th e
notion “criticaT’
• T he im p o rtan ce of re la tin g micro “
relatio n s of applied linguivstics to m acro relatio n s of society
• T he n e e d for a critical form of social
in q u iry

(•)A&soc.Prof Or. Scientific R esearch M a nagem ent OfTice. C ollege of F oreign Lari9 uages • VNƯ

34


C n ỉicu ỉ ;ipplicJ linguhMcs:

35

ar(»avS in wliich lan g u ag e plavs a niajor
role. T h is first version of applied
linguistics is by a n d large a resu lt
liistoricallv of its em erg en ce from
applying^ linguistic theory to contexts of
s<*cond lang u ag e pedagog>' in th e United
S t a t e s in th e 1940s. It is also worth
ob serv in g t h a t th is focus on lanỄP-ỉage
te a c h in g h a s also b een m assively
o rie n te d toward teach in g English as a
second language. T h e second version is a

rnoro recen t b ro a d e n in g of th e field,
a lth o u g h it is c e rta in ly not accepted bv
app lied linguists such a s W iddowson
(1999), who co ntinu e to a rg u e th a t
app lied linguistics m ed iate betw een
lin g u istic theory a n d languagrc^ teachingIn addition, th e re is a fu rth e r
(luestion as to w h e th e r we a r e dealing
w ith t h e a p p lic a tio n of lin g u is tic s to
app lied dom ains • w h a l Widdowson
(1980) tombed linguistics applied - or
w h e t h e r a p p lie d lin g u is tic s h a s a m ore
a u to n o m o u s s ta tu s . M a rk e e
(1990)
te rm e d th ese th e stro n g a n d th e weak
v ersio ns
ol
applied
linịruisiics,
respectively. As a B e a u g ra n d e (1997)
anil M ark ee (1990) arg u e, it is th e socalled stroníỉ version • linguistics applied
- t h a t h a s p red om in aled , from th e
clnssic B ritish tra d itio n e n c a p s u la te d in
Corder*s (1973) an d W iddowson’s (1980)
work thro u g h to th e p arallel N orth
A n ie rira n version e n c a p s u la te d in the
second ianffuage acquisition s tu d ie s of
w r ite rs
such
as
K ra sh e n

(1981).
R ev e rsin g M ark ee’s (1990) labels, i
would a rg u e t h a t th is m ig h t be more
usefullv seen a s th e w eak version
b ecau se it re n d e rs ap p lied linguistics

T a p i hi K hou hm O H & ifiN . Nịỉíkỉi

TXĨOU. Si> l. 2iXƯ

little more t h a n a n application of a
p a r e n t d o m ain o f knowledge (linguistics)
to d ifferen t contexts (m ainlv language
teaching). T h e applied ling^iistica th a t
critical applied linguistics deals w ith, bv
c o n tra st, is a stro n g version m a rk e d by
b r e a d th of coverage, interd iscip linarity ,
a n d a d eg ree of autonom y. From this
point of view, applied linguistics is an
a r e a of w ork t h a t d eals w ith lang uag e
u s e in professional setting, tran slatio n ,
speech pathology, literacy, a n d lan gu age
education; a n d it is not m erely th e
a p p lic a tio n o f lin g u is tic k n o w le d g e to
su ch se ttin g s b u t is a sem i-autonom ous
a n d in terd iscip lin ary d om ain of work
t h a t d ra w s on b u t is not d e p e n d e n t on
a r e a s such a s .sociolog>s education,
anthropology, c u ltu ra l studies, an d
psychology. C ritical applied linguistics

a d d s m an y new d o m ain s to this.
Praxis
A
second
concern
of
applied
lin guistics in genoral, an d one th a t
critical applied l i n ^ i s t i c s also needs to
a d d ress, is th e distinction between
th eo ry a n d practice. T h e re is often a
p rob lem atic ten dency to en gage in
applied
linguistic
research
an d
th eo riz in g
an d
th e n
to
suggest
pedagogical o r o th e r applications th a t
a r e not g rou nd ed in p a rtic u la r contexts
of practice. T his is a common o rien tatio n
in th e linguistics-applied-to-languageteach in g ap p ro ach to applied linguistics.
T h e re is also, on th e o th e r h and , a
ten d en cy to d ism iss applied linguistic
th eory a s no t a b o u t th e real world. Ỉ
w a n t to r e s is t both versions o f applied
lin guistics in all it s contexts a s a

V o D m Uuang

My

co n s ta n l reciprocal relation b e tw e e n
theory a n d praclico, o r p referably, as
‘t h a t con tinu ou s reflexive in te g ra tio n o f
th o u g h t, desiro a n d action soiiiCtimes
referred to a s ‘p rax is’ (Simon, 1992 : 49).
D iscourse a n aly sis is a practice t h a t
im plies a theory, a s a re se a rc h into
second lan g u ag e acquisition, tra n s la tio n
a n d teaching. T h u s, we p refer to avoid
th e theory-intO“practice direction a n d
in ste a d see th ese a s m ore complexly
in te rm in g le d . T his is why it is possible
to
s u g g e st
th at
critical
applied
lin g u istics is a w ay of th in k in g an d
doing.
a
“co ntin u ou s
reflexive
in te g ra tio n o f th o u g h t, d esire a n d
action."

B ein g C ritical
If th e scope a n d coverage of applied
lin g u is tic s n e e d s c a re fu l c o n s id e ra tio n ,
so too does th e notion w h a t it m ean s to
be critical or to do critical work. A p a rt
from som e g eneral u se s of th e te rm such
a s “D on't be so c r itic a r - one of th e m ost
com m on u s e s is in th e s en se of critical
th in k in g or literacy criticism . C ritical
th in k in g is used to describe a w ay of
b rin g in g m ore rigorous a n a ly s is to
problem
solving
or
te x tu a l
u n d e rstn n d in g , a w av of developing more
critical d ista n c e a s it is so m etim es
called. T h is form o f “skilled critical
q u estio n in g ’' (Brookfield, 1987
92),
which h a s recen tly gained some curren cy
in applied linguistics, can be bro ken
dow n into a s e t of th in k in g skills, a set of
ru le s for th in k in g t h a t can be t a u g h t to
s tu d e n ts . Sim ilarly, w hile th e s e n s e of
critical re a d in g in literacy criticism
u s u a lly a d d s a n a e sth e tic d im en sio n of

te x tu a l ap p reciatio n , m an v vorsions of
literacy crilicism havo a tle m p to d to

c re a te th e s a m e s o rt o f “critical d is ta n c e ’
by developing “objective* inethoiis of
te x tu a l analysis. M uch work t h a t lỉí done
in “critical th in k in g - a site in which one
m ig h t cxpect s tu d e n ts to le a rn w avs of
e v a lu a tin g th e “uses" of text a n d th e
im p licatio ns of ta k in g u p one read in g
position over a n o th e r • sim plv assu m e s
a n objectivist view of know ledge and
in s tr u c ts s tu d e n ts to e v a lu a te te x ts ’
“credibility'*, “purpose," a n d “bias”, a s if
th e se were tra n s c e n d e n t qualities.
It is th is sen se of “criticar* t h a t h a s
b een given som e space by m an y applied
lin g u ists ( e g W iddowson, 1999) who
a rg u e t h a t critical app lied linguistics
should o p erate w ith th is form of critical
d istan ce
a n d objectivist ev aluation
r a t h e r t h a n a more politicized version of
critical applied linguistics.
A lthough th e re is of co urse m uch to
be said for such a n ability to a n a ly z e an d
criticize, th e r e a r e two o th e r maior
t h e m e s in critical w ork t h a t s it in
opposition to th is ap pro ach . T h e first
m ay accept th e possibility t h a t critical
d ista n c e a n d objectivity a r e im p o rta n t
a n d achievable b u t a rg u e s t h a t th e m ost
significant a sp e c t of critical work is an

e n g a g e m e n t w ith political c ritiq u es of
social relations. Such a position iĩiổistổ
t h a t critical in q u iry can re m a in objective
a n d is no less so becau se of its
e n g a g e m e n t w ith social critique. The
second a r g u m e n t is o n e t h a t also insists
on th e notion o f “critical” a s alw ays
en g a g in g w ith q u estio n s of power an d
in eq uality , bu t it differs from th e first in

T ạp chi Khoii hoi O H Q G iiS . N^iyựi tiịỉữ. T XXỈỈt. sỏ ỉ . 2iX)7


37

C n tic iil applied hnguhlics:

t e r m s of its rejection of an y possibilitv of
crituĩal d is ta n c e o r objoclivity. For th e
m o m e n t let u s call th em iho modornist*

em an cip ato ry
position
and
th e
postnioilern pn jb lem alizin g position (see
T ab lu l).

Tabic Ỉ
rhreẹ A p p r o a c h e s to Critical Work

Critical thinking
Politics

T h eo retical b ase
G o als

L iberalism

H u m ii n js n i
Q u e stio n in g
ỉ^kỉlls

E m an cip ato ry
m od ern ism

P r o b le m a lu in g practice

N eo -M arx ism

F em in ism .
P o s lc o l o n ia l is m ,
Qu4‘<*r ih eo r>'.eic.

C ritical th e o n '

P o stslru c tu a h sm

ĩdeolog>' c n t i q u e D i s c u r m v e m a p p i n g

M icro a n d M acro R elation s
W hichever of th ese two positions we
t a k r , however, it is clear t h a t r a th e r
t h a n b a l i n g critical applied lingiỉistics
on a notion of teachal>l(* rritical th in k in g
skills, o r critical dislanco from social an d
political
relation s,
critical
applied
lin g u istics h a s Lways of re la tin g asp ects
o f ap pliẹd linguistics lo b ro ad er social.
n jlf u r :il. nnH pnlitirnl iloninin«5 Oĩìí* f \ f
th e shortcom ing s o f work in applied
lin guistics go nrrally h a s bo rn a tendency
to o p p ra to Willi w h a t is e ls e w h e re called
decontoxtualisecl conioxti;. It is common
to View a p p lie d lin g u is tic s a s ronce*rned
w u h la n g u a g e in context, b u t the
c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n of co n tex t is IVoíỊuently
o n e th a t is lim ited to a n ovc'rloralized
a n d u n d e rth e o riz e d viow of social
relations. O n e of th e k e y ch allen ges for
crilical app lied liniiui.stics, tho re fo rr, is
to find w ay s of ma|)])ing m icro a n d
m acro relatio n s, w ays of u n d e r s ta n d in g
a relatio n b etw een concepts of society,

Tup i hi Khitd hoc DHQiiHN. Nịiitui ỉtiỊiĩ. T ỉữữlỉ. iwJ 1. 21H)7

ideology, global capitalism , colonialism,
education, jjendor. racism , sexuality,
class
an d
classroom
u tteran ces,
tra n sla tio n s, conv(*rsioni5, genres, second
lan g u ag e
acquisition^
m edia
texts.
W h e th e r it is crirical a])plied linguistics
as a c ritiq u e of m a in s tre a m applied
lingiiistic?*, or a s a form of critical text
an aly sis, o r
as
an
approach
to
u n d e r s ta n d in g iho politics of tra n sla tio n ,
or as an
aliein p i
lu u iid fisia iK l
im p licatio ns of th e global sp read of
Knglish. a cciitral issue alw ays concerns
how th e classroom , lexl. o r conversation
is re la te d to broadiM* social c u ltu ra l and
p o litical ro la tio n s.
C ritica l S ocial Inquiry
It is not enough, however, m erely to

d raw
connt»c(ions
betw een
microre la tio n s of lan g u ag e in context an d
m arro -ro lalio n s of social inquiry. R ather,
such connections need to be d ra w n
w ith in a critical ap p ro ach to social
relations- T h a t is to say. critical applied


38

V o p j i Quang

lin^uiỉỉtics is concerned not mer(*ly w ilh
re la tin g lan g u ag e co ntex ts 10 social
contexts bu t r a th or does so from a point
of view th a t views social re la tio n s as
problematic. A lthough a g r r a l deal of
work in sociolinguistics, for exam ple, h a s
ten d ed to m ap laỉiguage onto a r a t h e r
s ta tic
view
of
societv;
critical
áocioliiiguistics is concerned w ith a
c ritiq u e of w ays in which lan g u ag e
p e r p e t u a t e s in e q u ita b le social re la tio n s .
From th e point of view o f s tu d ie s of

lan gu ag e an d gender, th e issu e is not
m erely to describe how la n g u a g e is used
difTerently along gen d ered lines b u t to
u se such a n a n aly sis a s p a r i o f social
critiq u e and tra n sfo rm a tio n . A ce n tra l
ele m e n t of critical app lied linguistics,
therefore, is a wav of exploring la n g u a g e
in social contexts t h a t goes bevond m ere
correlations betw een
lan g u ag e a n d
society an d in ste a d raisp s more critical
questions to do w ith access, power,
disparity,
desire, differences,
and
resistan ce. It also in s is ts on a historical
undf^rstRnflinp o f hnw
r#»iatinn«:
c a m e to be th e w av th e y are.
C riticai Theory
O n e way of ta k in g u p such qu estio ns
h a s been th ro u g h th e w ork know n as
C ritical Theory, a tra d itio n of work
linked to F r a n k fu r t School a n d such
th in k e rs as Adorno, H o rk h eim er, W alter
B enjam in, Erich
F rom m , H e rb e rt
M arcuse.
and
c u r re n tly

J y rg e n
H ab erm as. A great deal o f critical ắocial
theory, a t least in I h t W e s te rn tra d itio n ,
h a s d ra w n in v ario u s w av s
on this
rew orking o f M a rx ist th e o ry to include
m ore complex u n d e r s ta n d in g s of, for

oxaiDple. W i i y s Hi w h ich
concept
of
ideology

t h e M a r x is t
re la te s
to

psychoanalytic
undorsianciings
of
subconsciou.s, how a s p e r ts of p o p u la r
culture* a r e relaUul lo form s of political
control, a n d how p a r tic u la r form s of
poổitivisỉii a n d ra tio n a lism h av e come to
d o m in a te
o th e r
possible
w ays
of
th in k in g . Al th e v(*rv least, th is bodv of

work re m in d s us i h a t critical a p p lied
linguiổtics needs a t some level to en g ag e
w ith ih e long legacy of M arx ism , NeoM arxism .
and
its
m any
c o u n te ra rg u m e n ts . C ritical work in th is
sen se h a s to engage w ith q u estio n s of
in eq u ality , injustice, rig h ts, a n d w rongs.
Looking
m ore b ro ad ly
at
th e
im plications of th is line o f th in k in g , we
m ig h t say t h a t “c r i t i c a r h e re m e a n s
ta k in g social inecjualitv a n d social
tra n sfo rm a tio n as c e n tra l to one s work.
M arc P o ste r (1989:3) suggest?^ t h a t
‘"critical
th eory
sp rin g s
from
an
a s s u m p tio n t h a t we live a m id a w orld of
p ain , t h a t m uch can bo d o n e to allev iate
t h a t pain, a n d t h a t theory h a s a crucial
rote to plav in t h a t process .
T a k in g up P o ster’s (1989) term s,
critical ap plied l i n ^ i s t i c s is a n ap p ro ach
to la n g u a g e -re la te d

q u estio n s
th at
sp rin g from a n a s s u m p tio n th a t w e live
am id a world of p a in a n d t h a t applied
linguistics m av have a n im p o r ta n t role
in e ith e r
th e
pro du ctio n or
th e
alleviation of som e of t h a t pain, B u t it is
also a view t h a t in.sjsts n o t m erely o n th e
alleviatio n of p ain
b u t also
the
possibility of change.
P r o b le m a tizin g Givens
W hile th e s en se of critical th in k in g
a s discussed e a r lie r • a s e t o f th in k in g

T up ih t K hou họi DHQCỈHN. N ịị4hjì ỉiỊiử. T >XJỈJ.

i . 2iM>7


C 'riiK ^I upplicd Im g u islic

39

skills • a t t e m p t s alm o st bv definition to
re m a in iso lated from political questions,

from
issu es
of
power,
disp arity,
difference, o r desire, th e sen se of
“critical'’ t h a t is to be m a d e ce n tra l to
critical ap plied l i n ^ i s t i c s Ìổ one th a t
t a k e s th e s e a s t h e sine qu a non of our
work. C ritical a p p lied linguistics is not
a b o u t developing a set of skills t h a t will
m a k e th e do in g of applied linguistics
m ore
politically
accountable.
N ev erth eless, th e r e a r e quite divergent
s tr a n d s w ith in critical tho ug ht. As Dean
(1994) su g g ests, th e version of critical
thi'ory t h a t te n d s to critique ’’m odernist
n a r r a tiv e s in te r m s of th e one-sided,
pathological, a d v a n c e of technocratic or
in s t r u m e n t a l re a so n th e y celeb rate” onlv
10 offer “a n a lte r n a tiv e , h ig h er version of
ralion ality " in t h e i r place (D ean,1994: 3).
A g r e a t (leal o f th e work cu rro n tlv being
(iont' in critica l do m ains re la te d to
cT ilical a p p l i e d linguistics often falls into
th is
categ o ry
of

em an cip ato ry
m odernism , dovoloping a critique of

tu rn in g
a
skeptical
eye
tow ard
as su m p tio n s, id eas t h a t h a v e bc'comc
“n a tu r a liz e d ’", notions t h a t a r e no longer
questioned. D ean (1994:4) describes such
p r a tic e a s “t h e re.stive p r o b le m a tiz a tio n
of th e given". D raw in g on w ork in a re a s
such
as
fem inism ,
an tira cism ,
postcolonialism .
postm odernism ,
or
q u e e r theory, th is ap pro ach to th e
critical seeks not so m uch th e stable
g ro u n d o f a n a lte rn a tiv e t r u t h b u t r a th e r
th e
c o n s ta n t
q u e stio n in g
of
all
categories. From th is point of view,
critical applied linguistics is no t only

a b o u t re la tin g micro • re la tio n s of
applied linguistics to m acro - relatio n s of
social a n d political power; n e ith e r is it
onlv concerned w ith re la tin g such
q u estio n s to a prior critical a n a ly s is of
in equality, R a th e r, it is also concerned
w ith q u estio n in g w h a t is m e a n t by and
w h a l is m a in ta in e d by m a n y of th e
everyd ay
categories
of
applied
linguistics:
lan g u ag e
learning,
com m unication, difference, context, text,

mH'.iul

c u llu rc ,

uiicl

p o lilic u l

ro in ia lio iiu

but

offering only a v ersio n of a n a lte rn a tiv e

t r u t h in its pliice. T h is version of critical
m od ern ism , w ith its em p h a sis on
e m a n c ip a tio n a n d ratio n a lity , h a s a
n u nib or of lim itatio n s.
In place o f C ritical Theory. Dean
(1994:4) goes o n to propose w h a t he calls
a p ro b le m a tix in g practice. This, he
suggests, is a critica l practice because'* it
is u n w illin g to accept th e taken-forg r a n te d c o m p o n e n ts of o u r reality and
th e “oíTiciaĩ’ a c c o u n ts of how th e y cam e
to be th e w av th e y a r e '\ T h u s, a crucial
co m p on en t of critical w ork is alw ays

T ạ p ih i K hoư hoc D H Q G H N ,

«^/7. T XXỈỈỈ. S iU . 2(H)7

n ican in g .

Ira n y lu lio n ,

w ritin g .

literacy, a s se s sm e n t, an d so on.
Self- r e fl e x iv it y
Such a p rob lem atizing s ta n c e leads
to a n o th e r significant elem en t t h a t
n eed s to be m ade p a r t of a n y critical
applied linguistics. If critica] applied
lin g u istics n eed s to r e ta in a co n sta n t

skep ticism , a c o n s ta n t q u e stio n in g of th e
givens of applied linguistics, this
p ro b le m a liz in g stance m u s t also he
t u r n e d on itself. T he notion o f “critica r'
also n e e d s to imply a n a w a r e n e s s “of th e
lim its of know ing”. O n e of th e problem s
w ith en iancip ato ry-m o dernism is its


V o Dai (Juang

40

a s s u r ity a b o u t its own rig h tn ess, its
belief t h a t a n a d e q u a te c ritiq u e of social
a n d political ineq uality c an lead to a n
a lte r n a tiv e
reality.
A
postm o dern
p ro b lem alizing stance, how ever, n e e d s to
m a in ta in a g r e a te r s en se of h u m ility an d
difference a n d to ra ise q u e s tio n s a b o u t
th e lim its of it s own know ing. T h is selfreflexive position also s u g g e sts t h a t
critical applied linguistics is not concerned
with producmg itself as a new orthodoxy,
with
prescribing
new
models

and
procedures for doing applied linguistics.
Rather, it is concerned with raism g a host
of new an d difficult questions about
knowledge, politics, and ethics.
P referred Futures
C ritical applied linguistics also n eed s
to o p e ra te w ith some s o rt of vision of
w h a t is preferable. C ritical work h a s
often b een criticized for doing little more
t h a n criticize thin gs, for offering n o th in g
b u t a b leak a n d pessim istic vision of
social relation s. V arious form s o f critical
w ork . pflrtir\i1pirly, in
fturh aft
edu catio n, h av e so u g h t to avoid th is tra p
by a rtic u la tin g "‘u to p ian " visions of
a lte r n a tiv e realities, by s tr e s s in g th e
“tra n s fo rm a tiv e ” m ission o f critical work
o r th e p o ten tial for ch an g e th ro u g h
a w a re n e s s a n d emancipation. While such
goals a t least present a dừection for
reconstruction, thev also echo w ith a r a th e r
troubling modernist grandiosity. P erhaps
th e notion of preferred fu tu res offers us a
slightly more restrained an d plural view of
w here we m ight w ant to head.
Such p referred fu tu re s, however,
n eed
to b e g ro u n d ed

in
ethical

a r g u m e n ts
for
why
a lte rn a tiv e
possibilities m ay be b etter. For th is
reason, e th ic s h a s to become a kev
b u ild ing block for critical applied
linguistics, alth o u g h , a s w ith mv later
discussion of politics, th is is no t a
n o rm a tiv e o r m oralistic code of practice
b u t a recognition t h a t th ese a r e ethical
concerns w ith which we n eed to deal.
A nd th is notio n su g g ests t h a t It is not
only a la n g u a g e of critiq u e t h a t is being
developed h e r e b u t r a t h e r a n ethics of
com passion a n d a model of hope an d
possibility.
C ritical
Heterosis

A pplied

L inguistics

as

U sin g S t r e e t’s (1984) distinction

b etw een a u to n o m o u s a n d ideological
a p p ro a c h e s to literacy, R am p to n (1995b)
a rg u e s t h a t a p p lie d linguistics in B ritain
h a s s ta r te d to shift from its “au ton o m o us
” view of rese a rc h w ith connections to
pedagogy, linguistics, a n d psychology to
a
m o re
‘‘ideological” model
with
connections to m ed ia s tu d ie s a n d a more
g ro u nd ed
u n d e r s ta n d in g
of
social
processes. C ritical ap plied linguistics
o pens th e door for such change oven
w ider by d ra w in g on yet a n o th e r ran g e
of “o u tsid e” w ork (critical theory,
f e m in is m ,
p o stco lon ialism ,
p o s ts tru c tu ra lism , a n tir a c is t pedagogy)’’
t h a t both
ch allen ges a n d
greatly
e n rich es t h e possibilities for doing
applied linguistics. T h is m e a n s not only
t h a t critical app lied linguistics im plies a
h ybrid m odel of re se a rc h and p rax is but
also t h a t i t g e n e ra te s so m ethin g t h a t is

far m ore dynam ic. T he notion of
h e te ro sis h e re b y u n d ersto o d a s th e

T ap c h i Khoa hoc D H Q C fiiS . Nỹỉoựi

T

Sô 1. 20(i7


41

CnMcal applied linguislics:

creativ e
exp an sion
of
possibilities
re su ltin g from h y b n d ity . P u t more
sim plv, my p o in t hero is t h a t critical
applied lin guistics is far more t h a n th e
a d d itio n of a critical dim ension to
app lied linguistics; ra th e r. It opens up a
w hole new a r r a v of q uestion s an d
concerns, issu es such a s identity,
sexuality,
or
th e
reproduction
of

O th e rn e s s t h a t h av e h ith e rto not been
considered a s co ncerns related 10 applied
linguistics.
T h e notion of h etero sis helps deal
with a final concern, th e q u estio n of
n orm alivity. It m ig ht be objected th a t
w h at is being sk etch ed ou t h e re is a
problem atically normative* approach: by
defining w h a t is m a m bv critical and
criiical app lied lin g u istic s. An approach
t h a t a lre a d y h n s a predefined political
s ta n c e an d mode o f a n a ly s is is being set
up. T h e re is a c e rta in tension here: an
overdefined version of critical applied
linguistics t h a t d e m a n d s ad h e re n c e to a
p a r tic u la r form of politics is a project

t h a t is a lread y lim ited; b u t we also
c a n n o t envision a version of critical
app lied linguistics t h a t can accept any
political viewpoint. T he wav forward
h e re is this: On th e one h a n d , we are
a rg u in g t h a t critical applied linguistics
m u s t necessarily
lak e up certain
positions a n d stances; its view of
l a n ^ a g e can n o t be a n au to n o m o u s one
t h a t b ack s a w a v from connecting
la n g u a g e to b ro a d e r political concerns,
a n d fu rth erm o re, its focus on such

politics m u st be accountable to broader
political a n d ethical visions t h a t put
in eq u ality , oppression, a n d com passion
to th e fore. On ih e o th e r h a n d , we do not
w a n t to su gg est a n arro w a n d n o rm a tiv e
vision of how th ose politics work. T he
notion of heterosis, however, Of)ens up
th e possibility t h a t critical applied
lin guistics is indeed no t a b o u t the
m a p p in g of a fixed |)olitics o n to a s ta tic
body of knowledge l)ut r a t h e r is a b o u t
c re a tin g so m eth in g now. T h e se critical
app lied
linguistics
concerns
are
s u m m a riz e d in T able 2.

T a b le 2
O i l i c a l A p p lie d L in g u is tic s C o n c e r n s
In opposition 10
Centered on th e foilowing:
m ainstream applied
linguistics (ALx):
ị
i

Critical applied linguistics
(CALx) concerns
ị

The w<»ak version of

A strong view of

Breadth of coverage.

Applied linguistics
(ALx)

interdisciplinarity, andAix liiiguitítk
theory applied to
autonomy
language toaohing
A hierarchy of theory
Thought, desire, and
an d its application to
action integrated as praxis
different contexts

A view of praxis

T ap

Ihi Kỉuhỉ h4H Ì)H Q (ỉỉiN .

nỉỉử.

T

XXỈỈỈ. sỏ i. 2(H)7


42

V o Dai Quang

Being critical

Critical work engaged
with social change

Critical thinking as an
apolitical set of skills

Micro and macro
relations

Relating aspects of
applied linguistics to
b ro ad er social, cultural,
an d political domains

Viewing clasồroom.
texts, and so on as
isolaU'd and
autonomous

Critical social inquiry

Q uestions of access,
power, disparity, desire,
difference, an d resistance

Mapping language
onto a static model of
society

Critical theory

Q uestions of inequality,
injustice, rights, wrongs,
an d compassion

A view of social
relations as largely
equitable

Problem atizing givens

The restive
Acceptance of the
problem atization of thecanon of received
given
norms and ideas

Self-reflexivity

C o n stan t questions of
itself

Lack of aw areness of
its own assum ption

Preferred fu tu res

G rounded ethical
a rg u m e n ts for
alternatives

View th a t applied
linguistics should not
aim for change

Heterosis

The sum is g reater than
th e p a rts an d creates new

The notion that:
Politics + AIx = CALx

3. D om ains
linguistics

of

cr itic a l

applied

C ritical a p p lied lin g in stic s, th e n , is
more t h a n j u s t a critical d im ensio n
added o n to
a p p lied lin gu istics:
It
involves a
c o n s ta n t s k e p tic ism , a
c o n s ta n t q u e s tio n in g of t h e n o rm a tiv e
a s s u m p tio n s o f a p p lied lin g u istics. It
d e m a n d s a re stiv e p ro b le m a tiz a tio n of
t h e givens of a p p lied lin g u istic s an d
p r e s e n ts a
w av o f d o in g ap plied
linguistics t h a t seek s to co n n ect it to
q uestion s o f g en d er, class, sex uality ,
race, e lh n ic ity , c u ltu re , id e n tity , politics,

ideolog>% a n d discourse. A nd cruciallv, it
becom es a dy nam ic opening up o f new
q u estio n s
th at
em erge
from
th is
conjunction. In th is second p a r t a rougli
overview is given of d o m a in s seen as
co m p risin g critical applied linguistics.
T h is list is n e ith e r e x h a u s tiv e nor
definitive o f th e a r e a s m en tion ed in th is

article. B u t tak en in con ju nctio n with
th e issu es raised earlier, it p r e s e n ts us
w ith two principal ways of conceiving of
critical applied lin guistics • various
u n d e rly in g p rincip al w ay s a n d various
d o m ain s
o f coverage.
The
a re a s

T a p c h i K iuxj

D H Q C H N , Ng,MJỉ figif. T XX7/A S à 'i. 2iMi7


C n itca l jp p iic d linị!uisMcs:

sunimariy.ed briefly in th is article are
cTitica] discourse a!ialvsis an d critical
literacy,
critical
ap pro ach es
to
tra ỉìs la tiu n . InnRuagi^ teaching, lang uag e
te stin g , lang uag e p la n n in g an d lan gu ag e
rig h ts , literacy, a n d w orkplace settings.
Discourse A nalysis a n d
c ritỉcơ ỉ Literacy
C riitC Q l

u m igh t be tem p tin g to consider
critical
applied
linguistics
as
an
a m a lg a m o f o th e r critical dom ains- From
t h is
view
point,
critical
applied
lin guistics would e ith e r be m ad e up o f or
c o n s titu te th e intersection of, a r e a s such
a s critical linpuislics. critical discourse
a n a ly s is
(CDA),
critical
lang uage
awarene.^s, critical pedagogy, critical
sociolinguistics, an d critical literacy.
Such a formu!»ition is unsatisfiictorv for
several reasons. F irst, th e coverage of
such dom aijis IS r a th o r (iiffcMont from
t h a t of critical applied linguistics;
critical podagopv'. for example*, Ìồ used
b roadlv across m an v a r e a s of education.
Second, th ere a r e m any o th e r do m ains —
tcm inism . q u eer theory, postcolonialusm.
to naiiiP b u t a few • th a t do not o perate

u n d e r an explicit critical label b u t th a t
c l e a r l y h a VO a g r e a t (loal o f i m p o r t a n c e

for th e a re a . T h ird, it si>oms more
c o n s tru c tiv r to view critical applied
linguistics no t moroly a s a n tim algam of
d ifferen t p a r ts or a m etacate^ o ry or
critical work b u t r a th e r in more dvnam ic
a n d productive term s. A nd finally,
crucially, p a r i of dovelopiug critical
ap plied linguistics is developing a
critical stance to w ard o th e r a r e a s of
w ork, including o th e r critical dom ains.
C ritical applied linguistics m ay borrow

T ư p i hi Khi>a hoc D H Q G H S. N fioai ttịiữ. T XXỈỈi. s v / . 2007

43

a n d u s e w o rk from th e s e o t h e r areas, bu t
i t sh o u ld c e r ta in ly only do so critically.
N e v e rth e le ss , t h o r r a r e clnarlv major
affin ities a n d o v e rla p s b etw een critical
nppli(Kl linguiíítics a n d o th e r nam ed
critical a r e a s su ch a s critical literacy and
critical
d isc o u rs e
a n a ly s is .
Critical
literac y h a s less o ften b e e n considered in

a p p lie d l i n g u is tic s , la r g e lv b e c a u s e o f its
g reater
o r ie n ta tio n
to w a r d s
first
la n g u a g e literacy , w hich h a s often not
fallen w ith in t h e p erceiv ed scope of
appH ed
lin g u istics.
It
is possible,
how ever, to see critica l literac y in term s
of th e p ed ag o gical a p p lic a tio n of critical
d isco u rse a n a ly s is a n d th e re fo re a quite
c e n tr a l con cern for critical applied
l i n ^ Ì ổ t i c s . C ritical D iscourse Analysis
(CDA)
and
critical
literacy
are
so m e tim e s also combiiK'd u n d e r the
ru b ric of critical la n g u a g e aw a re n e ss
sin ce t h e a im of th is work is to
em p o w e r le a r n e r s by p ro v id in g th em a
c n tjc a l a n a ly tic a l fra m e w o rk to help
th e m reflect on thf*ir ow n language
e x p e l leiictfs

Hiiil

pi auU i.f»

hikI

un

Lilt'

language practices of others in the
institutions of which ihoy aro a part an d in
th e wider society w ithin which they live.
C ritical a p p r o a c h e s to literacy are
c h a r a c te r iz e d by a c o m m itm e n t to
reshape
literncv
e d u c a tio n
in th e
i n t e r e s t s o f m iirp im liz e d groups of
learners^ w ho on th e l>aổis of gender,
c u ltu ra l a n d socio-economic background
h a v e b e e n exclud(Kl from access to th e
d isco u rses
and
te x ts o f d o m in an t
econom ies a n d c u ltu re s.
A lth o u g h critica l lite ra c y does not
s ta n d for a u n i t a r v approiich, it m ark s

V o D m Quang

44

out a coalition of r(lucatii)nal in te re s ts
con inn tled to cngaginK wiUi possil>ilili(»s
t h a t th e tocluioloffies of w ritin g an d
o th e r mod OS of inscTÍption offer for social
chang e, c u ltu ra l diversity, economic
equity, an d political oniVanchisemont.
T h u s, as Luki* (1997a)
a rg u es,
alth o u g h critical ap p ro a c h e s to literacy
sh are
an
o rien tatio n
to w ard
u n d e r s ta n d in g literacy (or literacies) as
soc'ial practices re la te d 10 b ro a d e r social
a n d political concerns, th e r e a r e a
n u m b e r of different o rie n ta tio n s to
critical literary, in clud ing Freirean*
b a s e d critical podagogy. fem in ist an d
p o s ts tru c tu ro list app roach es, a n d text,
a n aly tic approaches, ('ritical Discourse
Altaivsii> would generally fall into this last
category, aimed as it is a t prọvidmg tools
for th e critical analysis of toxts in context.
U n like discourse a n a ly s is o r tex t
linguistics w ith th e ir dc'i^criptive goals,

CDA h a s th e la rg e r political aim of
p u ttin g th e foniis of texts, th e processes
of th e production of texts, a n d th e
process o f rending, to g e th e r w ith th e
s tr u c tu r e s of power t h a t h a v e given rise
to th e m , into an alv sis. CDA a im s to
show
how
“lin g u is lir d is c u r s iv e
p ra c tic e s ' a r e linked to “t h e w ider socio­
political s tr u c tu r e s o f pow er a n d
dominationVan
Dijk (1993 :249)
e x p lain s CDA aỉ5 a focus on “t h e role of
discourse in ih e (ro)production an d
challeng e of donunanciV’. A nd F airclough
(1995:132)
ex plain s
th at
critical
discourse analysis
a im s to sy ste m a tica lly explore often
opaque m la tionfihips o f c a u sa lity a n d

detvrm ination between (Cl Ì discursiioe
pracficvs, events a n d texts, a n d (hi w ider
social a n d c u ltu ra l sfn a 'tu res, relations
a n d processes: to investigate how such
practices, events a n d texts arise out o f
a n d are ideologically shaped by relations

o f p o w er a n d struggles over power.
C learlv, CDA will he a n im p o rta n t
tool for critical ap p lied linguistics.
C r i t i c a l A p p r o a c h e s to T r a n s i a tio n
O th e r d o m ain s of te x tu a l a n a ly s is to
critical
appli<‘d
linguistics
include
critical ap p ro a c h e s to transliUion. Such
a n app roach would not be concerned so
m uch with issu es such a s inistranổ lalio n
in itself b u t rn th p r th e politics of
tra n s la tio n ,
th e
way
in
which
t r a n s la tin g an d in te rp re tin g a r c related
to concerns sucli as class, gender,
difference, ideology an d social context.
Looking more b roadly a t tra n sla tio n
a s a political activity, V enu ti (1997:6)
a r g u e s t h a t t h e te n d e n c ie s o f t r a n s l a t i o n
to d o m esticate foreign cu ltu res, th e
iiiaiatciicc uu th e puisrtil>iUty of value
free tra n s la tio n , th e ch«illeriges to th e
notion
of
a u th o r s h ip

posed
by
tra n s la tio n , th e dom innnct' of tra n sla tio n
from English into o th e r lan g u ag es r a t h e r
t h a n in t h e o th e r direction, a n d th e need
to u n s e ttle local c u ltu ra l hegem onies
th ro u g h th e challeng es of tra n s la tio n all
po in t to th e need for a n ap p ro ach to
ira n s la tio n based on a n ethics of
difference. Such a s stan c e, on ih e one
h a n d , “u rg es th a t
tra n y la tio n s be
w ritten , read, a n d e v a lu a te d with
g r e a te r resp ect for linguistic an d
c u ltu ra l d iffe re n c e s’. O n h e o th e r h an d,

T ap t h i Khiầo hoi O H Q G H N .

Hỉiừ. T

SỎ t . 2()07


45

C n ỉic a ỉ applied Imauisiics:

it a im s a t “m ino ritizing th e s ta n d a rd
d ia le c t a n d d o m in a n t c u ltu ra l forms in
A m erican E nglish'’ in p a r t as “an

opposition to th e global hegem ony of
E n g lis h ”. Such as s ta n c e clearlv m atches
closelv th e forms of critical applied
l i n ^ i s t i c s th a t h a s been o u tlin ed so far:
it is based on a n €‘thics of difference, an d
trie s in its practice to move tow ard
change.
W ork on tra n s la tio n a n d colonial and
poổtcolonial stu d ies is also o f in te re sts
for
critical
ap plied
linguistics.
T r a n s la tio n a s a practice sh ap es, and
t a k e s s h a p e s w ith in, th e asy m m etrical
r e la tio n s of pow er t h a t o p e ra te u n d e r
coloĩíialism. In form ing a c e rta in kind of
subject, in p resen tin g p a rtic u la r versions
of c o lo n im l, tra n s la tio n b ring s into
being o v erarch in g concepts of reality,
know ledge, and re p re s e n ta tio n . T hese
concepts, a n d w h a t th ey allow us to
assu m e, com pletely occlude th e violence
which accompth e colonial subj<*ct.
Postcolonial
tra n s la tio n
studies,
th e n , a r e al)io to sh ed liffht on th e
processes by which tra n s la tio n , a n d tho

m assive
body
of
O rien talist,
A boriginalist, anci o tho r s tu d ie s an d
trariiổlatíons of ih e O ther, w ere so clearly
complicit w ith th e largi* colonial project
(Spivak, 1993). Onco ag ain , such work
clearly h a s a n in ip o rla n l role to play in
th e dev elo pm en t of critical applied
linguistics.
L a n g u a g e T eaching
L a n g u ag e teach in g h a s b een a
dom ain t h a t h a s often b een considered

T up rh i KHihj htH O ỈIQ (jH N . NuthJt figti. T XXi/l.

Ỉ . 2001

th e
principal
linguistics.

concern

of

applied

Q u estio ns of gender, sex uality a n d

sex ual identity , different config uratio ns
of power a n d in eq uality
h a v e been
ta k e n a s focus in m an y research es.
B ilinguafism h a s also been a n elem en t
th a t n e e d s c o n s id e ra tio n ill l a n g u a g e
education. Critical bilingualism c an be
s een a s th e ability to not ju s t s p e a k two
languages* b u t to be conscious of th e
socio-cultural. political an d ideological
contexts in which th e lan gu age^ (and
therefo re th e sp eak ers) a r e positioned
a n d function, a n d th e m ultiple m e a n in g s
t h a t a r e fostered in each.
C u rren tly , ih e ro is a n in c re a sin g
a m o u n t of m uch needed critical a n a ly s is
of
th e
in te re s ts
an d
ideologies
u n d erly in g
th e
construction
ĩìTìd
in te rp r e ta tio n
of
textbooks
(see
D endrinos, 1992). T h e re is critical

a n a ly s is of cu rricu lu m design a n d n eed s
analysis, including a proposal for doing
“critical need s a n a ly s is ' th a t a s s u m e s
t h a t in stitu tio n s a r e hierarchical a n d
t h a t th ose a t th e bottom a r e often
e n title d to more pow er th a n th e y have.
It seeks a r e a s wh(»ro g re a te r e q u ality
m ig h t be achit‘vod .
T h e use of crilical e th n o g ra p h y to
explore how s tu d e n ts a n d te a c h e rs in th e
p erip h ery re sist nn a p p ro p ria te English
a n d E nglish teach in g m eth o d s sh ed s
im p o r ta n t lig h t on classroom processes
in reactio n to d o m in an t linguistic a n d
pedagogical forms: It is im p o r ta n t to
u n d e r s ta n d
th e
e x te n t
to
which
classroom
resista n ce
m ay
play
a


V o Pat Ọuang

46

significant role in largo tra n sfo rm a tio n s
in th e social sphere. D iverse a s th ese
CAL stu d ies are, they all show a n
in te rw e a v in g of th e th e m e s discussed
h e re in w ith a ra n g e of concernĩí to do
w ith lan g u ag e teaching.
L a n g u a g e Testing

psychom etric
te stin g

(and

tra d itio n s
s u p p o rts

of

languafje

’‘interpretive*

approaches). S u ch n view of lan gu age
lo sting

a n im p o rta n t paradig m

shift iind p u ts m an y now crite ria for
u n d e r s ta n d in g

validity

c o nseq uential,

svstomic,

into

play:

in terp retiv e,

A s a fairlv closelv defined a n d
practically
au to n o m o u s
d om ain
of
app lied lin guistics a n d one t h a t h a s
g en erally
a d h e re d
to
p o sitiv ist
a p p ro ach es to research a n d knowledge,
la n g u a g e te stin g h a s long b een fairly
r e s is ta n t to critical challenges. C ritical
lan g u ag e te stin g (CLT) s t a r t s w ith th e
a s s u m p tio n t h a t th e a c t o f lan g u ag e
te s tin g is not n e u tra l. R a th e r, it is a
p roduct a n d a g e n t of c u ltu ra l, social,

political, ed ucatio n al a n d ideological
agendas
t h a t s h a p e th e lives of
indiv id ual p a rtic ip a n ts, te a c h e rs a n d
learn ers.

a n d ethical, all of which h av e more to do

T e s t ta k e r s a r e seen a s “political

T h is ties in t h e concc»rns a b o u t difTerent

subject in a political context'*. T e s ts a r e
d e e p ly

c*xnl>cdiliT
in

tu llu ia l,

w ith

th e

effects of tCists th a n

with

crite ria of in te rn a l validity.

L an g u ag e te s tin g is alw ays political.
We need to become increasin gly a w a re of
th e

effects (consequential validity) of

te sts, a n d t h a t t h e w ay forw ard is to
develop more “democralic* te s ts in which
te s t la k e r s a n d o th e r local bodies a r e
given g r e a te r involvem ent. T h u s, th e re
is a d e m a n d to see a do m ain of applied
linguistics, from classroom s to te x ts an d
te sts, as in h e r e n tly bound up w ith large
social, c u ltu ra l a n d political conlexts.
possible in te r p r e ta tio n s of te x ts in te s ts
iUid ih e q u estio n uf wiiuiiC lecidliig i&

ed ucatio nal an d political a r e n a s w here

acknowledged: If t e s t m a k e rs a r e d ra w n

difTerent ideological social forms a r e in

from a p a r tic u la r class, a p a r tic u la r race,

strug gle.

is

an d a p a r tic u la r gender, th e n t e s l ta k e r s

im possible to co nsid er t h a t a t e s t is ju s t

who s h a r e th e se c h a ra c te ris tic s will be

a test; C LT a s k s whose a g e n d a s are

a t a n a d v a n ta g e relativ e lo o th e r test

im p le m e n te d th ro u g h te sts ; it d e m a n d s

ta k e rs . T h e re is a c ritiq u e of positivism

t h a t la n g u a g e te s te rs a sk w h a t vision of

a n d psvchom etric te stin g w ith th e ir
em p h a s is on blend m e a s u re m e n t r a th e r

On acco u n t of th is,

it

society te s ts presuppose; it a sk s whose
k n o w le d g e

th e

t e s t IS based

on

and

t h a n s itu a te d form s of knowledge- T h e re

w h e th e r th is knowledge is negotiable; it

is

considers t h e m e a n in g of te s t scores a n d

p referred vision o f society is a n d a call to

t h e e x te n t to which t h is is open

u>

m a k e o n e s app lied linguistics practice

challenges

accou ntab le to such a vision. A nd th e r e

in te rp r e ta tio n ;

an d

it

a

dem and

to

T ạ p vht KhtHj hoc O H Q G H N . S

e sta b lish

ịìíhẳí

w hat

a

ỉigtt. T.XXIII, Sô ỉ . 2(KƯ


O itic a l jp p h cd linguÌHiics:

47

a r e .suggestions for cliiTorent practices

te rm s an d in stu ad co rrelating language

lh?u m ight s t a r t to c h an g e how te stin g is

v a ria tio n w ith superficial m e a s u re s of

All th e s e a r e cloarly asp ects of

social

stratificatio n,

C l / r t h a t b r in g it comfortably w ith in the

sociolinKi.n sties

a m b it of critical ap plied l i n ^ i s t i c s .

connection bt^tween people’s place in th e

Language P lan n in g a n d Language

to

“e sta b lish

a

sociotal h ierarchy, a n d th e linguistic and
o th e r k in d s of oppression t h a t th e y are

Rights
O ne d o m ain o f applied

linguistics

l h a l m ig ht be as su m e d to fall easily into
th e scope o f c n l i c a l ap plied lin g u is tic s IS

work

fails

tra d itio n al

such

as

lan g u ag e

policy

an d

p la n n in g since it would a p p e a r from the

subjected

to

at

different

le v e ls ’.

C am ero n (1995:15*16) h a s also pointed
to th e need to cle?velop a view of lan gu ag e
a n d society t h a t goes bevond a view th a t
la n g u a g e reflects society.
Critical

o u ts e t to o p e ra te w ith a political view of

applied

linguistics

would

in the

need to in corp orate views of language,

provious section, i t is not eno ug h merely

society, a n d pow er t h a t a r e capable of

to d ra w connections b etw een language

dealing w ith qu estio n s of access, power,

an d th e social world; a critical approach
to socifil re la tio n s is also roíỊUÌred. T here

d isp arity , a n d diflerence a n d t h a t see

IS

co n stru ctio n of difference.

language- Yet, a s

nothing

suggested

inherently

lanjTuaiie policv.

critical

Indeed,

piirt

about

la n g u a g e a s playing a crucial role in the

of the

Two

significant

d o m ain s

problem, h a s been precisely th e w ay in
which
la n g u a g e
policv
has
been

sociolinguislics

uncritically developed anW hik' inaiiỉlHiuiUịị a "vencfi uf M:u'iiLific

langiuigo am i gt»nder a n d second work
UII htii^ u aị^ tr Iỉghlỉ«. ( Ị u t ta l ỉu i td a l i u u t Lhi*

o lỉjrrliv ity /’

d o m in a n c e

language*

p la n n in g

has

th at

h ave

of

developed

broad critical a n a ly s is a r e first work on

of c iT la in

la n g iu ig e s

0Vi*r

l(*nded to avoid d ire rtlv acldrossin^ large

o th e r s have* lKH*n raised by Phillipson

social a n d political matterH williin which

(1992) throufjh his notion of (Kiifilish)

latii^uago change, use* an d ck'volopment.

linguistic im perialism an d his argunuMit

a n d indeed lan g u ag e p la n n in g ìLsoir are

th a l

em bedded.

economic a n d

M ore generally, socioliguistics has

English

has

been

sp read

for

political purposes, an d

poses a m njor th r e a t to o th e r languages.

been s<‘V0 re*ly critiq u ed by critical social

T h e o lh e r side of th is a r g u m e n t h a s

th e o ris ts for its u s e of a static, liberal

been la k i‘n up th ro u g h a r g u m e n t s for

view of society a n d t h u s its inability to

la n g u a g e rights. Wc a r e still living with

deal w ith q u e s tio n s of social justice.. As

linguistic w rongs t h a t are a p ro d u ct of

Mcy (1985: 342) suggests, by avoiding

th e

q u estio n s of social in e q u a lity in class

m onolingualism

T u p c ỈU Kh*H4 htu ŨÌ f Q( / f ỉ N. N^tHỉi rĩỊỊ^. T ĩữ ĩỉỉ, Síì / . 2iH)7

belief

in
an d

th e
th e

n o rm a lity
d a n g e rs

of

Ví> Pat Ọuany

48

m u ltilin g u alism to ih e s e c u rity o f ih e

Recontlv. th e n ip u l c h an g es in w orkplace

n a tio n s ta te , fiolh a r e d a n g e r o u s m yths.

p racticcs an d rh n n g in g n erd s nf new

W h a t is proposed, th on . is t h a t tin* riíĩht

Tor ms

to ideniify w ith, to m a i n t a i n a n d to fully

co nsid erable a t t e n t i o n . Gee, H ull, and

develop o ne’s m o lh o r ton gu p(s)” should

L a n k s h e a r (1996). for example*, look a t

he

s e lf e v id o n t,

th e eiiects o f th e new work o rd e r u n d e r

lin g u istic

new capilalisn) on lang uag í' anti literacy

acknow ledged

fu n d a m e n ta l
hum an

as

“a

in d iv id u al

r ig h t’*.

C ritical

ap plied

oT

practices

literacy

in

th e

have

workplace.

n ttra r to d

Poynton

linguistics, th€»n, w ould in clu d e w o rk in

(1993b), m ean w h ile, d ra w s aU e n iio n to

th e

t h e d a n g e r t h a l “w o rk p la c e r e s t r u t u r i n g ’

areas

of

so cioling uistics

and

lan g u ag e p la n n in g a n d policy t h a t ta k e s

m ay

u p a n overt political ag€‘n d a to e sta b lish

s ta tu s of m an y women" no t only because

o r to a r g u e for policy a lo n g lin o s t h a t

of th e challeng e of ch an g in g w orkplace

focus ce n tra lly on issu es o f social justice.

skills a n d te c h n o lo ^ e s b u t also because

Language^ Literữcyy a n d W o r k p l a c e
A n o th e r d o m ain of w o rk in ap plied
linguistics t h a t h a s been t a k e n u p w ith a
critical focus h a s beon t h e w ork on uses
of la n g u a g e

and

and

literac y

in

p ro fessio n al

m arg in alised

and

v alue of women's

skills, W om en’s in tera ctiv e oral sk ills as
well a s th oir literacy skills h av e often
failed to be acknow ledged in workplaces.
O ne th in g t h a t em erg es h e re is the

v ario u s
settin g s.

th e

of th e failu re to acknow ledge in lan gu age
th e c h a r a c te r

Settiixgs

w orkplace

“e x a c e rb a te

wav

in

which

critical

concerns

are

M oving beyond work t h a t a t t e m p t s only

in te rtw in e d . Nol onlv a r e th e fram in g

to
d escribe
th e
i:oiuiiiuuicaliuỉỉ OỈ

issu es discussed in th e previous section

b etw een

people in

p atte rn s
of
uf Iiilerac tỉu ii
mf»(lical, legal, or

ever p re s e n t hero, b u t also both th e
d o m ain s

described

linguistics a p p ro a c h e s to t h e s e c o n tex ts

critical

ap p ro a c h e s

of co m m u n icatio n

tra n s la tio n ,

o th e r w orkplace settin g s, c ritic a l ap plied
focUxS

fa r

m o re on

in

th is

section

to

discourse,

bilingualism ,

•

lan g u ag e

q u estio n s of access. jx)wer. d isp a rity ,

policy, pedagog>' • a n d th e u n d pflyin g

a n d diflVrence. Such

social re la tio n s of race, class, gender,

attem p t

to

move

a p p r o a c h e s also
to w a r d

rtCtive

e n g a g e m e n t w ith a n d c h a n g e in th e se
contexts.
It h a s b een observed t h a t t h e r e aro
connections b etw een w o rk p lace u s e s of
la n g u a g e a n d re la tio n s o f pow or a t the
in s titu tio n a l a n d b r o a d e r social levels.

an d o th e r co n stru ctio n s of difference arc

all a t work together. T he in te rre la tio n
betw een th e concerns (discusổod earlier)
an d

th e d o m ain s (discussed h ere) of

critical ap plied linguistics a r e o u tlin ed
in th e following figure:

T a p i hi Khthi hoc D H Q C ifiN . N%oạt Hiỉỉ. T )CQU.

t. 2(X)7



V n Dai Quang

50

th ro u g h
lan g u ag e?
How
do
we
u n d e r s ta n d q u estio n s of difference in
relatio n to lan gu age, education, or
literacy? How does ideology o p erate in
relatio n to discourse? We, therefore,
have to deal w ith th e politics of
lan gu age, th e politics of tex ts, th e

politics of pedagogy, a n d th e politics of
difference-

it m ay also signal a po in t a t which
ap p lied linguistics m av finally movo into
a n ew s ta te of being.
T h e se sen ses of criticaỉ also need lo
be included in a n u n d o rs ta n d in g of
critical ap p lied linguistics.

(ill) D iscussing th e b ro a d e r social arid
political iss u e s to do w ith literacy an d
la n g u a g e education, lan g u ag e teach ers
S urely, a n ap p ro ach to issu es in
a r e offered a choice: e ith e r to “cooperate
lan^ruage education, co m m u nicatio n in
in th e ir own m a rg in a liza tio n by seeing
th e workplace, tra n s la tio n , a n d literacy
th e m se lv e s a s “lan g u ag e t e a c h e r s ’ with
t h a t focus on question s of power,
no connection to such social a n d political
difference, access, a n d do m in atio n o u g h t
issu es” o r to accept t h a t th e y are
to be ce n tra l to o u r concerns.
involved in a crucial d om ain of political
(ii)
Two last m e a n in g s 0Ĩ critical t h a t work. Given th e significance of th e even
can also be given som e space h e r e are:
b ro a d e r do m ain wo a r e in te re s te d in
(a) critical as im p o rta n t o r crucial: a

h ere-lan gu ag e, literacy, com m unication,
crucial m om ent, a critical tim e in one's
tra n s la tio n , bilingualism^ a n d pedagogy •
life, a critical illness a n d (b) critical as
a n d th e p a r tic u la r concerns to do with
u sed in m a th s a n d physics to s u g g est th e
th e
global
ro!e
of
languages,
p o in t t h a t m a rk s th e ch an g e from one
m u ltilin g u alism , power, a n d possibilities
for th e c reatio n of difference-it w ould not
s ta te to a n other. In th e version of
applied linguistics b ein g p re se n te d here,
seem too far-fetched to s u g g e st th a t
th e notion of ‘*criticar* m ay lead to th e
c ritic a l a p p lie d lin g u is tic s m a y a t le a s t
u n d e r s ta n d in g t h a t critical applied
give us w avs o f dealing w ith som e of th e
linguistics deals w ith some of th e c e n tra l
m o st crucial edu cation al, c u ltu ra l, an d
p o litic a l is s u e s o f o u r tim e.
issues in lan g u ag e use to th e e x te n t t h a t
TÀI LIE U THAM KHẢO
1.

Cameron, D.. Demytholopzing socioling^uistics: Why language does not reflpct society. InJ.
Joseph & T. Taylor (Eds.), Ideologies o f language, London: Routledgo, 1990, pp. 79*96.

2. Corder, s p.. Introducing Applied Linguistics. Harmonsworth: Penguin, 1973.
3. Corder, s p.. Error Analysis and Interlanguage, Oxford; OUP, 1981,
4. Corder, s.. Introducing applied linguisiics, Harmondsworth: PengT.iin, 1973.
5- Dean, M., Critical and effective historieỉị: Foucault's methods and hii^torical ỉiociology,
London: Routledge. 1994.
6.

de Beaup*ande, R-, Theory and practice in applied linguistics: Disconnection, conflict or
Applied L i n g u i s t i c s y 18, 1997, p.279-313.

T u p c h i Khoa họi' Ũ H Q G H N. Ngom

rxxill. So

I. 2ÌHÌ7


Cnhc'iil applied ling uislics:

51

7

F a i r c l o u g h , N , LangU Q gi* a n d p o w e r , L o n d o n : L o n g m a n . 1 9 8 9 .

8.

F a irc lo u g h , N ,, In trm lu rlio n . In N. F a irc lo u g h (E d.). C r itic a l ìa n g ư a ịie a w a re n e ss. London:
i ^ o n g m n n . 1 9 9 2 c , p p . 1*29.

9.

F o u c a u l t , M .. H u m a n n a lu tt* : J u s t i c e v e r s u s p o w e r [ D is c u s s io n w i t h N .C h o m s k y ] . I n F. E l d e r
R e fle x iv e Lcntvr: T h e b a s ic co n ccrnỉi o f m a n k in d , Ijoncion: S o u v e n i r P r e s s , 1974, p p . 133-198.

10.

F o w l e r R , , O n c n t i c a l lin g u is tic s . I n c . R. C a ld a s - C o u th iir c l & M . C o u l t h a n l
practices: Reữdinfỉỉĩ in criticũldiỉ^ciyurse analysis, London: Routledge, UÌ96. pp. 3*14.
1 1.

Fowler, R., Ka*ss, (i.. H(xlgỉ». R., & T irw , T. (Eds.).. Lanịĩuaịỉe a n d control, liondon: Routledge. 1979.

12. Hatim. B.. & Mason, I., Thv translator as communicator. London: Routlodge. 1997.
13. Ibrahim. A,. Becoming Black: Rap and hip-hop. race, gender; identity and the politics of
KSL learning. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 1999, p.349-369.
14. Kress. Cl,. & Hưdpe. R., Language a.s ideology, London: Roulledge, 1979.
1Õ-

Iwee, A - G e n d e r; H tcm cy, C ỉir r k u ỉu m : R e iv r ừ ìĩĩg .scAoo/ g e o g m p h y , Loncỉon: T a y l o r & F r a n n s . 1996.

16. Markee, N.. Applied linguistics; What's that?

18. 1990. p.315*324.

17. Usher. R, . & Kdwards* R., Pof^tmodernism and education. London: Routletlge. 1994.
18. van Dijk, T. A.. FnncipU*s of critical discourse analysis. Discourse ơnd Society, 4(2), 1993b,
249-283.

19. Wicldowson. H (]., Explorations in Applied LinguiMics, Oxford: OUF, 1979.
VNU JOURNAL O f SCIENCE, Foreign Languages, T XXIil, Nol, 2007

NC;()N N Í Ỉ Ừ H Ọ C c n s í ỉ n Ụ N í i P H È l*HÁN:

NHĨIN í ; v ấ n đ ể q u a n t â m v à c á c l í n h v ự t : NÍỈMIKN c ứ u
PG S.T S. V6 Dui Q u u n ^
P h ò n g Q uán /v N g h iẻn cứu K hoa h(K,
Trưttrìịi D ọi hiìC N goọt ngữ, Đ ọi họi- Q u(k g ia Ha N ộ i
T h u ậ t nKừ "Ngôn npử học ứ n p d ụ n g phô p h â n * xu âl hiỏn g ản lỉãy Iron g các tài liệu
ngôn ngử học và clạy tiõng. Nội h à m cu a k h á i niệm này là pì? Nô quy chiếu tới một
đ ưòng hư ớng n g h iê n rứ u, một lý th u y ế t h ay m ột địa h ạ t tron g ngôn n p ủ học? Các cáu
hỏi n à y đ a n g dẽ ng() vho n h iểu cách hiểu k h á c n h a u . Trước n h u cầu dó cúa thự c tiễn>
bài báo n àv (lược tl)iél k ế dể, tro n g p h ạm vi và mức độ có thế, ựiúp dem lại n h ữ n g híêu
b iết c ãn b án vé Ngôn nỉfử học ửiig d ụ n g p h ê p h ân . Bài báo b à n VỂ n h ừ n g v án clìính dề
chính sau:
• Yếu tỏ “phò phán'* (critical) tro n g Ngôn ng ử học ứn g tiụng:
-N h ữ n g v ấn đ ế q u a n tâ m c ủ a Ngôn ng ử học ứ n g d ụ n g p h ê phán;
• Các lình vực n g h iên cửu của N gỏn n g ừ học ử n g d ụ n g p hê ph án.

i u p ( ht KIhhj hiK' D//Cx;//N.

tiỉitl T K V ỈÌ. sv /. 2(Hf7