Critical Applied Linguistics Essay

Critical applied linguistics: its significance for English teaching professionals in Pakistan

Introduction

This study aims to highlight the scope of critical applied linguistics and emphasize the need for applied linguists within Pakistan to capitalize on the rich insights it can provide in understanding the multi-layered and complex sociolinguistic, sociopolitical, socioeconomic, and sociocultural dynamics of the country. Critical applied linguistics is a relatively recent area of academic inquiry within applied linguistics. We believe that highlighting the scope of critical applied linguistics can be critical from the viewpoint of applied linguists and English teaching professionals because we observe that most applied linguists or English

It is a critical approach to the study of language policy and planning. According to Tollefson (2006), the term ‘critical’ in language policy context has three interrelated meanings: “(1) it refers to work that is critical of traditional, mainstream approaches to language policy research; (2) it includes research that is aimed at social change; and (3) it refers to research that is influenced by critical theory”(p. 42). Contrary to the ‘optimistic traditional research’, critical research recognizes that policies generally ‘create and sustain various forms of social inequality, and that policy-makers usually promote the interests of dominant social groups” (Tollefson, 2006, p. 42). The social change implies that the researchers explore the social and economic inequalities and aims at reducing these inequalities. Critical applied linguistics derives inspiration from Marxist and the Neo-Marxist theory. Pennycook (2001) argues that researchers in critical applied linguistics need to “engage with the long legacy of Marxism, neo-Marxism, and its many counterarguments” (p. 6). Critical theory encapsulates work by a number of thinkers (Bourdieu, 1991; Foucault, 1982, 1995; Foucault & Sheridan, 1979; Gramsci, 1988; Habermas, 1979). Much of this work involves a rethinking of Marxist theory, as well as critiques

For instance, Pennycook (2002) , Moore (2002), and recently Manan, David, and Dumanig (2014) deployed the framework of governmentality to examine language policies. Pennycook (2002) proposed a postmodernist stance on the analysis of micro-level language policy enactment methods drawing on the notion of ‘governmentality’ used earlier by (Foucault, 1991) . Governmentality refers to the “indirect acts of governing that shape individual and group language behavior” enacted through “techniques and practices of politicians, bureaucrats, educators, and other state authorities at the micro-level as well as the rationales and strategies these authorities adopt” (Tollefson 2006, p. 49). Governmentality was first introduced by the French philosopher and sociologist Foucault in a series of lectures delivered during 1978 and 1979. Foucault conceived that government was not a sovereign or singular power, but a combination and ensemble of multiple and multilayered practices involving government of oneself, government within social institutions, communities and government of the state. Foucault defined governmentality as the “conduct of conduct” (conduire des conduites), addressing the power and governance that takes place from a distance to influence the actions of others. Governmentality “takes the focus off a singular state-driven hegemony” (Johnson 2013, p. 118). Governmentality as a theoretical