Educational Responses to Language and Power - Literature review Example

Issues in critical and educational responses to language and power Introduction Norman Fairclough, one of the pioneers of critical discourse analysis in sociolinguistics, provided invaluable insights on how power can be portrayed through language. In his book, “Power and Language”, Fairclough (1989) introduces a new dimension of understanding issues pertaining to language and power. Previously linguistics and sociolinguistics theorists particularly those who examine the social context of language have explored the notion of language and power however, according to Fairclough, they have failed to establish the complex and rich interrelationships of language and power. Fairclough notes that some of the previously conducted studies, have generally examined the existing sociolinguistic conventions with regards to how they dispense power unequally nevertheless, these studies have not explained some of these conventions as products of relations of struggles of power and power. Based on the sentiments of Fairclough (1989), it is evident that there are complex and rich interrelationships of language and power that are yet to be explored. It is therefore essential to focus on the critical study of language or critical language awareness. Fairclough (1992), accentuated that critical awareness of language is an element in language education that is urgently needed. He also notes that critical language awareness builds upon critical language study, critical discourse analysis and critical linguistics among many others. In addition to this, Reagan (2006), notes that the critical study of language plays an integral role in teachers, students and education administrators who are politically and socially responsible and aware. This essay seeks to examine issues in critical and educational responses to language and power. Foremost, this essay will seek to establish why the notion of “critical” is always related to questions of power. Secondly, it will examine how pedagogical responses such as critical discourse analysis, critical pedagogy, critical literacies, and critical multiculturalism relate to issues of language and power. It will also illuminate how educators, parents and the community can develop responses to issues relating to language and power. In addition , it will discuss the advantages and difficulties of critical approaches to education. . The notion of “critical” in issues relating to language and power The term “critical” is commonly used in a good number of educational responses to issues relating to language and power. For instance, critical pedagogy, critical literacies, critical discourse analysis and critical multiculturalism are some of the frequently used terms when examining issues relating to language and power. It is therefore worth questioning why the term “critical” is embedded in language and power issues. In order to establish this fact, it is important to first establish what it means to be critical in the context of language studies. The term “critical” was first used in lingual studies to describe an approach referred to as critical linguistics (Kress & Hodge, 1979).Some scholars suggested that the use of language can contribute to the mystification of social events which can be made clear through systematic analysis (Wodak 2009).To date the notion of critical is employed in a broader sense as the practical linking of political and social engagement with a construction of society that is sociologically informed (Wodak 2009). Therefore the term critical is essentially used to show the interconnectedness of things (Fairclough 1995). Moreover, the notion of “critical” in issues relating to language and power is used for questioning discourses, identities and power relations. It is used to challenge status quo so as to illuminate alternative paths for social empowerment and development. Similar to these sentiments, Pennycook (2004) observes that, being critical involves explicit social critique. Another way of viewing the notion of critical is that it is a form of problematising practice. This view insists on casting more doubt on the categories that are used to understand the social aspect of the world and the assumptions on rationality, awareness and emancipation. The key weakness of this view on the “notion of critical” is that it hides the intended meaning views in languages, subjectivity and discourse. It is also reflect constant self-questioning thus tends to incline towards relativity (Pennycook 2004). In addition to this, Pennycook notes that the term “critical” is used to make people’s understanding of things to become socially relevant in different domains of linguistics (Pennycook 2004). Critical Discourse Analysis and its relation to language and power As observed earlier in this paper, Norman Fairclough was one of the pioneers of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) in sociolinguistics. CDA can be defined as an interdisciplinary approach used in the study of discourse that considers language as a social practice. CDA focuses on the ways political and social domination are visible in talk and text (Fairclough, 2009). According to Fairclough (2003), texts are integral parts of social events that are determined by causal power of social structures such as languages and social practices like orders of discourse. A close look at Fairclough’s 1989 and 1995 model for CDA shows three interrelated analysis processes that are connected to three discourse dimensions that are also interrelated. These dimension include; the object of analysis which comprises of the visual and verbal texts. The second dimension is the process through which the object is produced and received. This can include process like speaking, reading, designing, listening and writing. The third dimension includes the socio-historical conditions that regulate these processes. Based on the sentiments of Fairclough, these dimensions require different forms of analysis namely text analysis, processing analysis and social analysis respectively (Fairclough 1989; Fairclough 1995). It is worth noting that CDA is not a homogenous or a united approach and it is not confined to one method. One of the key assumptions that unite CDA practitioners is that power and language are linked completely. Similarly, Janks (1997) observes that CDA originates from a critical theory of language that considers the use of language as type of social practise. Janks further observes that most social practices are linked to specific historical contexts and act as means through which the existing social relations are contested, reproduced and various interests are met. It is the issues revolving around interests that connect discourse to power relations. For example when analysing a text, one can ask themselves, “How is the text positioning? “ “Whose interests are served by this positioning?” “What are the implications of this positioning?” It is in this aspect that the essence of power arises. Janks concludes that CDA is portrayed in a case whereby analysis attempts to understand the way in which discourse is implicated in power relations (Janks, 1997). The critical force of CDA is that it aims at unmasking ideologies and revealing power. Power is one of the central force concept for CDA, since it evaluates the language use of figures in power and those who are accountable for the existence of inequalities. In most cases, CDA researchers accentuate on that way in which discourse reproduces social domination, a form of power abuse of one group of people over others. CDA researchers also focus on how groups which are dominated can discursively defend themselves against such abuse. These sentiments raise questions on how CDA researchers comprehend power and the moral standards that they adhere to when distinguishing the use and abuse of power. So far this questions remain unanswered nevertheless, there are various concepts of power just as much as there are social theories. There are no socio-psychological or sociological theories that do not portray a distinctive concept of power. For example, Micheal Foucault unites the concept of domination and power in a Weberian tradition. He mainly focuses on structure and recommends the analysis of power using a functionalist strategy (Foucault 1975). In CDA power is mainly regarded in light of Foucault’s sentiments not only because Foucault is one of the theoretical pioneers of CDA but mainly because CDA texts are typically considered as manifestations of social action as determined by social structures. Power is important when it comes to understanding the specifics and dynamics of control in today’s society however power continues to remain invisible. Linguistics manifestations of power are often under investigation in CDA (Wodak 2009). The relation between language and social power is a common theme not only in CDA but also in sociolinguistics. A significant perspective in CDA revolving around the notion of power is the fact that it is very unusual that a text or a discourse is the work of a single person. In most texts, discursive differences are negotiated and are regulated by differences in power. Based on this analysis it is evident that the key defining aspect of CDA is its regard for power as the key condition in social life and its attempts to introduce a theory of language that incorporates power as its main premise (Wodak 2009). From this, we learn that power is mainly about relations of difference especially about the impacts of social structure differences. The constant unity of social matters and language ensures the entwinement of language in social power in different ways. For instance, language indexes express power and are involved in areas where there are challenge and contention to power. Based on this study we also learn that power does not necessarily derive language however language can be employed to subvert power, challenge it and change power distributions. In addition, language offers a well articulated vehicle for hierarchical social structures and power differences. In a nutshell, CDA can be considered as fundamentally being concerned with the analysis of structural relationships revolving around discrimination, dominance power and control as portrayed in language (Wodak 2009). Critical pedagogy According to Johnstone (2003), critical pedagogy is a teaching approach that not only focuses on the political dimensions of education but also positions this dimension at the centre stage when it comes for calling politically committed pedagogy. Critical pedagogists accentuate on the centrality of power and politics in the understanding of how schools work. Pennycook (1994) considers critical pedagogy as a form of education that is based on a desire for social change. Definitions provided by Johnstone (2003) and Pennycook (1994), are similar in the sense that they portray critical pedagogy as an educational approach that can be used to institute change in different social contexts. Critical pedagogy necessitate the empowerment of learners, this can be realised through different means. There are profound lessons that teachers, parents and administrators can learn from literatures on critical pedagogy about how to respond to issues relating to language and power. Critical pedagogy requires teachers to have an open mind about their political views. Foremost, empowerment of learners can be realised through a commitment to the voice of students. It is therefore essential for teachers, educators, parents and administrators to take heed to the needs of students be implementing student-centred approaches to learning, policies and practises. Secondly, critical pedagogy facilitates the empowerment of learners by continuously helping them to understand that knowledge presented to them in schools may not be necessarily neutral but could be socially constructed. Therefore, learners should be empowered not to be mere knowledge consumers but also knowledge producers. Moreover, critical pedagogy can ensure the empowerment of learners through class activities that promote conscientization amongst learners. This in turn makes learners to become aware of the power issues in their social context and the actions they can take in order to better their situation (Johnstone, 2003). Critical multiculturalism In second language research studies and education in general, cultural differences are examined in relation to issues revolving around cultural diversity and linguistics. Cultural differences are an integral part of second language education. Nevertheless, Kubota (2004) notes that cultural difference is often comprehended as objective, fixed and politically based on normative ideals of culture. It is therefore necessary to challenge some of the existing understandings on culture by analysing and politicizing different contradicting meanings of cultural differences. Critical multiculturalism provides an approach of re-examining and questioning conventional beliefs, ideologies and responses to cultural differences. In his article “The politics of cultural difference in second language education “, Kubota attributes the contradicting and multiple meaning of cultural differences to politics and power struggles. He uses the example of Japanese written style of communication to show the way in which political and power struggles influence constructions of cultural differences and language. With regards to this case Kubota observes that Western scholars specialising in applied linguistics have examined Japanese communication patterns and characterised it as inductive, indirect, ambiguous and a culturally specific style. On the other hand, Japanese scholars consider the Japanese communication style as one that signifies political identity (Kubota 2004). A number of studies have challenged these characterizations. For instance Willinsky (1998), points out that the point of view of Western scholars on Japanese communication, portrays a colonist discourse that forms a rigid boundary between the colonised and the coloniser. Willinsky further notes that cultural differences are often embedded on discourses on imperialism and colonialism (Willinsky, 1998). In order to empower learners, parents, teachers and administrators in education can draw on to critical multiculturalism to identify and implement culturally relevant teachings, policies and practices that celebrate and affirm cultural differences especially for minority students while at the same time confronting assimilationists and racism ideologies that aim at erasing the rich cultural heritage of learners from different cultural backgrounds (Kubota 2004). Critical literacies and Language Language plays an integral role in teaching people what they should become and what type of society that they should develop. Nevertheless, language is not the ultimate defining factor since people can remake society and redefine themselves through other dissident and rhetoric projects. It is in this case that the notion of critical literacy arises for questioning discourses, identities and power relations in a world that is yet to be established. Shor (1999) asserts that critical literacy helps to challenge status quo in a bid to find alternative ways of social and self development. From these sentiments, I understand literacy as a form of social action through the use of language. I consider critical literacy as one’s engagement with language as part of a continuous process of gradually becoming conscious of their experiences within particular power relations. Basically, critical literacy can be viewed as the use of language to question common social constructions. When a person is critically literate, they tend to examine their ongoing development to portray subjective developments that make sense and afterwards they act on what they have learnt so as to promote self and social development (Shor, 1999). In their article, Morgan & Ramanathan (2005) examine aspects of critical literacies and language education. From their study they establish that critical literacy is solely not based on the ability to attain literacy through decoding syntax, words or language. In essence, a person’s ability to read or understand what is written is not necessarily needed so to engage in critical discussion and analysis of texts such as books, newspapers, art, music, movies, television , web pages and other channels of expression. The important thing that is required is the ability to think critically and flexible about issues in discussion and express the different meaning of the texts. Therefore from this study we learn that critical literacy goes beyond language and engages with language as part of a continuous process of gradually becoming conscious of experiences within particular power relations (Morgan & Ramanathan 2005). Advantages and difficulties of critical approaches to education Critical approaches play an invaluable role in education. From the discussion provided in this paper it is apparent that critical approaches to education form the basis of effective rationalisation and questioning of issues relating to language and power in education. For example, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is an interdisciplinary approach that can be used in the study of how discourse is implicated in power relations (Janks, 1997). CDA helps in the analysis of structural relationships revolving around discrimination, dominance power and control as portrayed in language (Wodak 2009). Furthermore, critical approaches to education help to promote positive changes in education and other social contexts. For instance, critical pedagogy makes learners to become aware of the power issues in their social context and the actions they can take in order to better their situation (Johnstone, 2003). Moreover, critical approaches to education promote appreciation for cultural differences in education. For example, critical multiculturalism helps to educators and teachers to identify and implement culturally relevant teaching and practices that appreciates and affirms cultural differences especially for minority students while at the same time confronting assimilationists and racism ideologies (Kubota 2004). On the other hand, some of the difficulties associated with critical approaches to education are that these approaches tend to hide the intended meaning of views in languages, subjectivity and discourse. In addition, these approaches reflect constant self-questioning and as a result they tend to incline towards relativity (Pennycook 2004). Conclusion This essay has examined issues in critical and educational responses to language and power. The focus of this essay has been on how critical responses such as critical discourse analysis, critical literacy, critical pedagogy and critical multiculturalism relate to the questions of language and power. In order to establish these facts, it was first essential to examine why the notion of critical always needs to be related to questions of power. A review of relevant literatures by Pennycook (2004) and Wodak (2009) established that the notion of “critical” in issues relating to language and power is used for questioning discourses, identities and power relations. It is used to challenge status quo so as to illuminate alternative paths for social empowerment and development. In the subsequent sections of this paper, the focus was on critical and educational responses to language and power. The findings of different literature depict an interconnection between these critical responses and power and language. Moreover, it is established in this paper , these critical responses have an invaluable role in education in that they form the basis of effective rationalisation and questioning of issues relating to language and power in education. Based on the findings of this paper, it is evident that there is need for new dimensions of understanding issues pertaining to language and power. Hence, these critical responses seek to fill this gap by challenging status quo so as to illuminate alternative paths for social empowerment and development. Bibliography Fairclough, N., 1989, Language and Power, Longman, London. Fairclough, N., 1992, Critical language awareness, Longman, London. Fairclough, N., 1995, Critical Discourse Analysis, Addison Wesley, Boston. Fairclough, N., 2009, Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, Pearson Education, New Jersey. Janks, H., 1997, Critical discourse analysis as a research tool, Discourse studies. In the Cultural Politics of Education, Vol 18, Issue 3, pp.329-342. Johnstone, B., 2003, Values and the politics of English language teaching, in Values in English language teaching , Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Kress, G. & Hodge, R., 1979, Language as ideology, Routledge, New York. Kubota, R., 2004, The politics of cultural difference in second language education, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, Vol 1, Issue1 , pp. 21-39. Morgan, B. & Ramanathan, V., 2005, Critical literacies and language education: Global and local perspectives. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (2005) 25, 151–169 Pennycook, A., 2004, Critical moments in a TESOL praxicum. In Norton, B. & Toohey, K. Critical pedagogies and language learning. Cambridge University Press, New York. Reagan, T., 2006, The explanatory power of critical language studies: linguistics with an attitude, Critical inquiry in language studies: An international Journal, Vol, 3, No.1, pp. 1-22. Shor, I., 1999, What is critical literacy, Journal for pedagogy, pluralism and practise , Vol 1, Issue 4. Willinsky, J., 1998, Learning to divide the world: Education at empire’s, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Wodak, R., 2009, Critical discourse analysis: history, agenda, theory, and methodology. In: Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis, Sage, London, pp. 1-33. Read More