Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T16:23:18.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CONTROVERSIES IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2004

Barbara A. Lafford
Barbara A. Lafford
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

CONTROVERSIES IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS. Barbara Seidlhofer (Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Pp. ix + 346. £22.05 paper.

Echoing Bakhtin's assertion of the importance of a dialogic approach to the study of language and literature and Kramsch's (1995) view that exploring differences is more important than achieving consensus, Seidlhofer's book focuses on the analysis of a collection of readings from original works by authors with opposing views on several topics in applied linguistics.

Type
BOOK REVIEWS
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 483 - 485
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

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

REFERENCES

Fairclough, N. (1996). A reply to Henry Widdowson's “Discourse analysis: A critical view.” Language and Literature, 5, 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramsch, C. (1995). Embracing conflict versus achieving consensus in foreign language education. ADFL Bulletin, 26, 13–15.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. (2001). Issues in applied linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McDonough, S. (2002). Applied linguistics in language education. London: Arnold.
Widdowson, H. G. (1995). Discourse analysis: A critical view. Language and Literature, 4, 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1996). Reply to Fairclough: Discourse and interpretation—Conjectures and refutations. Language and Literature, 5, 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar