Volume 4, Issue 2 - Critiquing applied linguistics

Neoliberalism and neoliberal ideology has only recently begun to gain attention within applied linguistics. This paper seeks to contribute to this development with a focus on neoliberal keywords in official texts. The ideological content of these keywords can best be understood within the political project of neoliberalism and within the political economy of contemporary capitalism. Studies which have highlighted the marketization of institutional discourse have analysed this phenomenon from a discourse-based perspective, rather than seeing neoliberal ideology in language as a contradictory manifestation of wider social relations in periods of social crises. The appearance of ideology in language, this paper holds, is unstable, unfinished, unpredictable and dependent for meaning on what Dell Hymes characterised as the “persistent” social context. The ideology of neoliberalism, for all its apparent hegemony, is not guaranteed full consent, and this applies also to its presence in language. The question of social agency is crucial to understanding the social dynamic and unpredictability of ideology in language, both in terms of who produces neoliberal keywords and how they are received and understood. This paper argues that international think tanks, articulating the interests of capital, act as powerful keyword standardisers and their influence will be examined in the production of texts in the Irish university context. However, neoliberal keywords, in certain conjunctures, will also be contested, as will be shown. The paper concludes that applied linguistics is uniquely placed to both critique and challenge neoliberal keywords in the university and that such a challenge has the potential to find wider political resonance as governments, amid continuing economic recession, recharge the ideology of neoliberalism.

Generative linguistics has long been concerned with the linguistic competence of the “ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech-community, who knows its language perfectly” (Chomsky 1965: 3). Research in formal-linguistics-based second language acquisition takes as its starting point the second language (L2) speaker's underlying mental representation. Here the factors of interest are influence of the learner's native language and, in generative SLA, the operation of innate linguistic mechanisms (Universal Grammar). Similar to methodology in formal syntax, lxSLA adopts techniques such as grammaticality judgment, comprehension and perception tasks supplementing spontaneously produced oral data. While there may be individual differences in oral production, tasks that tap learners' mental representations reveal commonalities across learners from a given native language background with the same amount/ type of exposure and age of initial L2 exposure. When it comes to phonology, age has long been a central factor with numerous comparative studies showing younger learners far outperforming older learners (see Piske et al. 2001). This paper discusses a case of possible non-acquisition by L2 children who had had considerable exposure to the L2. Children's non-acquisition is only apparent, and this allows us to consider the value of lxSLA methodology on the one hand, and and raises issues about what might be lacking in the current socio-SLA paradigm, on the other. We argue that only when we return to the cooperation that marked its birth in the 1960s will we have a comprehensive picture of SLA.

This paper provides a critical review of reflective practice (RP), drawing attention to particular problems with its representation, as well as proposing a more evidence-based and data-led approach to RP. Our central argument is that RP in the fields of applied linguistics, TESOL and education has achieved a status of orthodoxy without a corresponding data-led description of its value, processes and outcomes. Our concern is that RP is described in ways that are elusive, general, and vague and which may not be particularly helpful for practitioners. This is largely due to the lack of concrete, data-led and linguistic detail of RP in practice and to its institutional nature, lack of specificity, and reliance on written forms. It is also the case that, despite a small number of exceptions (e.g. Korthagen and Wubbels 1995; Walsh 2011), reflective practice is not operationalized in systematic ways. This paper argues that applied linguistics needs to champion a description of RP's processes and impact by drawing on data-led accounts of reflective practice across a range of contexts. Too many RP accounts rely on general summaries and so are neither critical, transparent, nor usable by other practitioners. A key aspect of developing a more critical approach is the need to move beyond rosy summaries of the outcomes of RP towards accounts of how RP gets done. Where possible we need to share examples of ‘reflection in action’ so that its nature and value can be better understood. We propose here that RP needs to be rebalanced, away from a reliance on written forms and taking more account of spoken, collaborative forms of reflection; in sum, we argue for a more dialogic, data-led and collaborative approach to reflective practice.

This paper examines the spread of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) through a number of lenses. It argues that the supporters and promoters of CLIL position it as a near-panacea and attribute to it a large number of benefits, not all of which are supported by research. Looking at the issues arising from recent attempts to define CLIL, the paper proposes a distinction between weak and strong CLIL. The paper points to the lacunae in the research into CLIL, and suggests that these gaps are the result of educational policies that privilege a second language over other curricular subjects. Looking at the contexts where CLIL seems to succeed, as well as places where such teaching has been acknowledged to fail, it emerges that success is often connected to a high level of student selection on a number of criteria, as well as a high level of investment in teachers and teaching, and that CLIL often privileges those students who are already high achievers both in language and content. The paper then looks at the way in which the spread of CLIL policies can be understood through theories of policy borrowing and educational transfer.

There is growing recognition that language cannot be seen as a pregiven system that correlates with and simply manifests itself in social context, but as a form of social practice. However, this perspective has not yet made a serious impact on applied linguistic research, where dominant modern ideologies of language that tend to conceive of language as an entity with clear boundaries and autonomous structure still prevail. We argue that this problem reflects a general lack of critical reflection on the fundamental assumptions of the discipline, and make this point via a review of some of the recent work on English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). In particular, we focus on a direction in research in which increasing effort is put into identifying and describing distinct ELFs within specific communities or domains, leading to a proliferation of ELFs, each of which can in turn be characterized in terms of a distinct set of formal linguistic features. We analyze the problems with identifying such “downscaled ELFs”, considering this research practice as an act of “linguistic baptism”, and discuss how it constitutes an uncritical appropriation of dominant metadiscursive regimes, rather than a careful engagement with them. In doing so, we call for a more serious consideration of metadiscursive regimes and the fundamental assumptions about language inherent in them.

Within U.S. higher education, there has been concern expressed about the underrepresentation of racial/ethnic minority students in U.S. study abroad programs. Though as a whole these students participate in study abroad at lower rates than their Caucasian counterparts, the fact that study abroad participation is even problematized by race/ethnicity (rather than other social categories such as gender, socioeconomic status or field of study) and the manner by which this is done warrant critical investigation. Drawing upon Foucault's concept of problematization (1984, 1988), this paper examines the discourses and practices (both discursive and nondiscursive) that mark current study abroad literature in which participation by U.S. undergraduates is tracked, categorized and ranked by race and ethnicity. It further problematizes the taken-for-granted assumptions that masquerade as truths and inhabit the methodological and analytical practices that govern research on racial and ethnic minority students, and in the process, uncovers an overarching code of thought that permeates the literature. Ultimately, this paper seeks to challenge the “truths” and counter the assumptions upon which this code of thought is based by highlighting those voices only marginally recognized in study abroad participation literature. These voices provide a local and contextualized perspective on the factors contributing to the lower rates of participation among one racial/ethnic minority category: African Americans. Although the paper does not take up the topic of language learning in study abroad contexts, it does present the real world challenge of language-in-use. It addresses the material and subject effects that a problematization of study abroad participation by race/ethnicity has on students, research practices, institutional and governmental policies, and the allocation of resources related to language study and the promotion and support of study abroad.