Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:35:57.252Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crossing borders, addressing diversity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2016

Suresh Canagarajah
Suresh Canagarajah*
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a story of applied linguistics from my personal vantage point as a multilingual scholar whose career began outside the centers of research and scholarship. The article explains the assumptions and practices characterizing the foundation of the discipline in modernist discourses, and delineates the changes resulting from globalization towards postmodern discourses that question positivistic inquiry and homogeneity. As applied linguistics evolves to address diversity as the norm, the article identifies the different schools that have gradually moved the field in that direction – e.g., variationist applied linguistics (VAL), critical applied linguistics (CAL), postmodern hybridity, and translingual practice. Through these movements, the field has also evolved from linguistics applied (LA) to a more theoretically plural and, currently, to a more agentive relationship with other disciplines. Rather than simply borrowing from other disciplines, applied linguists have begun to make their own contributions to those disciplines on language-related issues.

Type
First Person Singular
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , July 2016 , pp. 438 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atkinson, D. (2014). Language learning in mindbodyworld: A sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. Language Teaching 47.4, 467–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Baugh, J. (1983). Black street speech. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Block, D. (2014). Moving beyond ‘lingualism’: Multilingual embodiment andmultimodality in SLA. In May, S. (ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education. New York: Routledge, 54–77.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Byram, M. (2008). From intercultural education to education for intercultural citizenship. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, A. S. & Lee, E. (2014). Negotiating alternative discourses in academic writing: Risks with hybridity. In Thesen, L. & Cooper, L. (eds.), Risk in academic writing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 59–99.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, A. S. (1990). Negotiating competing discourses and identities: A sociolinguistic analysis of challenges in academic writing for minority students. Unpublished dissertation. University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006a). The place of World Englishes in composition: Pluralization continued. College Composition and Communication 57, 586–619.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006b). Toward a writing pedagogy of shuttling between languages: Learning from multilingual writers. College English 68.6, 589–604.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006c). TESOL at forty: What are the issues? TESOL Quarterly 40.1, 9–34.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, A. S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1.1, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1973). Introducing applied linguistics. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Creese, A. & Blackledge, A. (2008). Flexible bilingualism in heritage language schools. Paper presented at the Urban Multilingualism and Intercultural Communication conference, Antwerp, Belgium.Google Scholar
Cummins, J. (2008). Teaching for transfer: Challenging the two solitudes assumption in bilingual education. In Cummins, J. & Hornberger, N. H. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education: Vol. 5. Boston: Springer, 65–75.Google Scholar
Davies, A. & Elder, C. (2004). Applied linguistics: Subject or discipline? In Davies, A. & Elder, C. (eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duchene, A. & Heller, M. (eds.) (2012). Language in late capitalism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Duff, P. A. (2008). Language socialization, higher education, and work. In Duff, P. & Hornberger, N. (eds.), Language socialization: Encyclopedia of language and education. Boston: Springer, 267–270.Google Scholar
Farrell, T. J. (1978). Differentiating writing from talking. College Composition and Communication 29, 346–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality. On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 26, 237–259.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1966). On communicative competence. Paper presented at the Research Planning Conference on Language Development among Disadvantaged Children, Yeshiva University, New York.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kaur, J. (2009). English as a lingua franca: Co-constructing understanding. Berlin: Verlag.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. (2014). Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization: Introduction. The Modern Language Journal 98.1, 296–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramsch, C. (2000). Linguistic identities at the boundaries. Paper presented in the annual convention of AAAL, Vancouver. March 12–14.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1969). The logic of non-standard English. Georgetown Monographs on Language and Linguistics 22, 1–31.Google Scholar
Lado, R. (1964). Language teaching: A scientific approach. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. (1996). SLA theory building: ‘Letting all the flowers bloom!’ Language Learning 46, 713–749.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. (2011). The sociocultural approach to second language acquisition: Sociocultural theory, second language acquisition, and artificial L2 development. In Atkinson, D. (ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition. Abingdon: Routledge, 24–47.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/complexity theory perspective. In Kramsch, C. (ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives. London & New York: Continuum, 33–46.Google Scholar
Leung, C. (2005). Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicative competence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15.2, 119–144.Google Scholar
May, S. (ed.) (2014).The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education. NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly 29.1, 9–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pitzl, M-L. (2010). English as a lingua franca in international business. Saarbrücken: Verlag.Google Scholar
Pratt, M. L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession 91, 33–40.Google Scholar
Raj, J. (1982). WASP ideology: The kernel of the American Kernel Lessons. Sri Lanka Guardian 5.11, 15–18.Google Scholar
Said, E. W. (1983). Travelling theory. In The World, the Text, and the Critic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 226–247.Google Scholar
Smitherman, G. (1974). Soul n’ style. English Today 63.3, 14–15.Google Scholar
Students’ Right to Their Own Language. (1974). Special issue of College Composition and Communication 25.1–32.Google Scholar
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Zamel, V. (1997). Toward a model of transculturation. TESOL Quarterly 31.2, 341–351.Google Scholar