Critical Language Awareness

Norman Fairclough

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317898542
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Filología
• Subtopic: Lingüística

The proliferation of language awareness has now led to a need for a reassessment of the nature and functions of language awareness. This accessible collection of essays addresses that need in developing a more rigorous and critical theoretical underpinning for what language awareness is and should do. In particular, it argues that there needs to be a greater awareness of the social and political issues, and the context within which language awareness work is set.

1 Introduction

Norman Fairclough

This book is a contribution to current debate on the role and nature of ‘language awareness’ in language education. In recent years, language awareness has been widely advocated as an important part of language education. The chapters in this volume agree with this position, but they also share the view that language awareness programmes and materials have hitherto been insufficiently ‘critical’. That is, they have not given sufficient attention to important social aspects of language, especially aspects of the relationship between language and power, which ought to be highlighted in language education.¹

The term ‘language awareness’ has been used since the early 1980s to refer specifically to the advocacy by a group of language teachers, educationalists and applied linguists of a new language awareness element in the school curriculum, at the top end of primary school or in the early years of secondary school (Hawkins 1984, NCLE 1985). I shall use the abbreviation ‘LA’ for this language awareness movement. But the term is also used alongside others such as ‘knowledge about language’ to designate in a more general way conscious attention to properties of language and language use as an element of language education. Arguments for language awareness in schools in this broader sense occurred before LA (Doughty et al. 1971 is a notable example), and can be found in recent reports on the teaching of English within the national curriculum (DES 1988, DES 1989). This book is concerned with language awareness in the more general sense, and not only in schools but also in other domains of education. But in using the expression ‘language awareness’ in the title, and in referring to ‘critical language awareness’ (henceforth CLA) rather than, say, ‘critical knowledge of language’, we recognise the importance of LA during the past decade in advancing the general case for making knowledge about language a significant element in language education, and doing so partly on the basis of social concerns which overlap to some extent with our own. Much of the discussion of existing work in language awareness in this book focuses upon LA.

The book is in part a critique of existing conceptions of language awareness, but its focus is upon the nature of alternative conceptions, and upon their practical implementation in various educational contexts. Contexts referred to include primary and secondary schools, universities and colleges of higher education. Contributors write both as theorists and as practitioners, with a variety of interests and professional concerns – including language in multicultural education, teaching of English in primary and secondary schools, industrial language training and race awareness training, literacy and adult literacy, language and gender, English as a foreign language, and theoretical interests in critical approaches to language study. The distinction between theory and practice is not however a neat one, since some contributors engage in both. Nor does it simply correspond to the distinction between those working in higher education and those working in other educational spheres: some of the latter make theoretical contributions, and some of the former write primarily as practitioners. I think that the book as a whole achieves an unusually high level of integration between theory and practice, and my hope is that this will make it better able to strengthen critical strands of thinking in current debates about language education.

CLA presupposes and builds upon what is variously called ‘critical language study’, ‘critical linguistics’, or ‘critical discourse analysis’ (see for example Fairclough 1989, Kress 1989, Mey 1985). It also presupposes a critical conception of education and schooling. I shall spell out these presuppositions below, especially the former, which will be new to many readers. But I think that it is vital first of all to situate both critical language study and CLA in their social and historical contexts: I shall argue that the case for critical approaches to language and language education is becoming increasingly persuasive now, because of contemporary changes affecting the role of language in social life. I shall also develop the distinction between critical and non-critical approaches to language awareness, and my comments above on the relevance of this book to current debates over language education. The other component of this introduction is a summary of the themes and issues raised by contributors.

Language education in a climate of change

It can hardly be news to anyone that we are living in a period of intense social change. But what is perhaps less obvious is how important language is within the changes that are taking place (Fairclough 1990a). In three ways. First, there are changes in the ways in which power and social control are exercised. There has been a long-term tendency for power relations to be increasingly set up and maintained in the routine workings of particular social practices (e.g. performing one’s job, or consulting a doctor), rather than by force. This shift from more explicit to more implicit exercise of power means that the common-sense routines of language practices (e.g. classroom language, or the language of medical consultations) become important in sustaining and reproducing power relations. This has been linked to the salience of ideology in the functioning of power in modern societies (see Thompson 1984, Fairclough 1989).

Second, a significant part of what is changing in contemporary society is precisely language practices – for example, changes in the nature and relative importance of language in various types of work, or changes in ways of talking as part of changes in professional-client relationship. And third, language itself is more and more becoming a target for change, with the achievement of change in language practices being perceived as a significant element in the imposition of change.¹

It is changes of this sort that make critical approaches to language study of particular contemporary relevance, and make CLA an urgently needed element in language education. CLA is, I believe, coming to be a prerequisite for effective democratic citizenship, and should therefore be seen as an entitlement for citizens, especially children developing towards citizenship in the educational system.

Let me give some examples to illustrate the second and third points above. A fundamental and pervasive example of changing language practices as a significant dimension of social change is what is happening to language in places of work. There has been a large-scale restructuring of employment which has led to a larger service sector and a smaller manufacturing sector, and this in itself has major implications for the linguistic demands of work – many more people are having to communicate with ‘clients’ or ‘publics’, for example. The quality of the communication is coming to be seen as part of the quality of the service. Even within manufacturing, there is a shift away from isolated work on a production line to team work, and workers are seen as needing more complex ‘communicative skills’. One interesting development is that discussions of such skills increasingly highlight abilities in face-to-face interaction, group discussion and decision-making, ‘listening skills’, and so forth – abilities which have previously been seen (in so far as they have been noticed) as general ‘life skills’ rather than vocational skills. And of course another new category of skills expected of workers is in communicating with and via computers (see Chapter 8).

Another example of changing language practices which affects people both in their work and as ‘clients’ is change in the ways in which professional-client interactions are structured. Examples are interactions between doctors and patients, between solicitors and their clients, between teachers and pupils, or between shop assistants and customers. Practice is highly variable, but there does seem to be a tendency towards more informal and more conversational language. Whereas clients were traditionally expected to adapt to the practices imposed by the professions, professionals now seem to be adapting to practices familiar to clients. What this example suggests is that changing language practices are closely tied in with changes in social relationships (between professionals and clients in this instance) and with changing social identities (in this case, both the social identities of professionals and the social identities of their clients).

Notice that both the examples I have given illustrate what is, I think, an important contemporary tendency: for the informal, conversational language associated with face-to-face interaction and group interaction in more private spheres of life to shift into public and institutional spheres. An example which I discuss later in the book (see pp. 44–5) is medical interviews. There is a deep ambivalence about the contemporary ‘conversationalisation’ of language, as we might call it, in its implications for power: on the one hand, it goes along with a genuine opening up and démocratisation of professional domains, a shift in power towards the client and the consumer. But on the other hand, conversational style provides a strategy for exercising power in more subtle and implicit ways, and many professionals are now trained in such strategies (see Fairclough 1990b). Other areas of what seems like démocratisation of language practices are perhaps similarly ambivalent, including greater apparent acceptance of minority languages and non-standard varieties of English in various institutional contexts.

I also suggested above that language itself is becoming a target for change, and change in language practices is coming to be seen as significant in the implementation of more general social and cultural change. Systematic institutional links are being set up between research into existing language practices, redesign of language practices to improve their ‘effectiveness’, and training of personnel in new language practices. And specialist institutional personnel are being employed to do this work – for example, it is coming to be seen as one aspect of the expertise of management consultants. This more interventionist orientation to language is reflected in how language is pervasively conceptualised in terms of skills or techniques (such as interviewing and counselling) which are designed (and can be redesigned) for particular purposes, and can be applied in various domains and institutions more or less independently of context. I have suggested elsewhere that ‘technologisation’ of language is a striking feature of contemporary society (Fairclough 1990b).

The process of technologisation is one explanation for the new emphasis upon training in spoken language skills within language education, which seems to be partly motivated by anticipated changes in the demands of work (see Barnes 1988, Fairclough 1990a). Again, training in, for example, interview techniques which underscores the values of informality and client centredness is becoming an increasingly recognised part of the training of managers and professionals, and draws upon the results of (more or less systematic) research into professional interviews. Or again, advertising techniques are a well-established domain of research, design and training. Notice that in the latter two cases technologisation affects not only language, but also non-verbal communication in the case of the former and visual images in the case of the latter, and is often cast in psychological rather than linguistic terms. What is often at issue is the language element in a wider process of technologisation.

These then are some of the ways in which language is involved in contemporary processes of change. One consequence is that language practices are widely problematised: people commonly have problems knowing how to act as professionals, clients, parents, children, managers, employees, colleagues; and part of the problem is not being quite sure how to talk, write, or interpret what others say or write. And interaction between women and men, or between members of different cultures, often aggravates these problems. A rather different sort of problematisation is the unease that people commonly feel about the way language works in politics or the media or advertising. But we all have a relationship to language practices which mixes in various proportions problematisation with naturalisation: even new practices tend to take on the common sense, natural and background properties which the ground rules of social life need to have to a high degree if people are to function. It is this tendency to naturalisation that makes technologising interventions to shape language practices so potentially insidious.

In this context, it is not surprising, I think, that critical approaches to language study have been attracting more interest from linguists and language educators. A critical orientation is called for by the social circumstances we are living in. If power relations are indeed increasingly coming to be exercised implicitly in language, and if language practices are indeed coming to be consciously controlled and inculcated, then a linguistics which contents itself with describing language practices without trying to explain them, and relate them to the social and power relations which underlie them, seems to be missing an important point. And a language education focused upon training in language skills, without a critical component, would seem to be failing in its responsibility to learners. People cannot be effective citizens in a democratic society if their education cuts them off from critical consciousness of key elements within their physical or social environment. If we are committed to education establishing resources for citizenship, critical awareness of the language practices of one’s speech community is an entitlement.²

Critical language study

A critical view of education and schooling, and a critical approach to language study, are as I suggested earlier presuppositions of CLA. I assume that the development of a critical awareness of the world, and of the possibilities for changing it, ought to be the main objective of all education, including language education, a perspective which is eloquently summed up by Freire:

Whether it be a raindrop (a raindrop that was about to fall but froze, giving birth to a beautiful icicle), be it a bird that sings, a bus that runs, a violent person on the street, be it a sentence in a newspaper, a political speech, a lover’s rejection, be it anything, we must adopt a critical view, that of the person who questions, who doubts, who investigates, and who wants to illuminate the very life we live. (Freire 1985; see also Clark et al. 1988: 32–3)

But the notion of a critical approach to language will be less familiar, and needs more explanation.

Critical language study (CLS henceforth) is not a branch of language study, but an orientation towards language (and maybe in embryo a new theory of language) with implications for various branches. It highlights how language conventions and language practices are invested with power relations and ideological processes which people are often unaware of. It criticises mainstream language study for taking conventions and practices at face value, as objects to be described, in a way which obscures their political and ideological investment. CLS is not new, and in fact one important contribution dates from sixty years ago (Voloshinov 1973, written in the late 1920s), but it has become relatively well known only in the past decade or so (Fowler et al. 1979, Pêcheux 1982, Mey 1985, Fairclough 1989). Important influences have been social theorists such as Pierre Bourdieu, Michel Foucault and Jürgen Habermas, whose work has been relatively language-centred, and theories of discourse which have come to be closely linked with developments in thinking about ideology and the social subject (Foucault 1981, Pêcheux 1982, Henriques et al. 1984). There are various groups and approaches, not all of which identify themselves as ‘critical’. The most important one in Britain has been the ‘critical linguistics’ group (Fowler et al. 1979, Kress & Hodge 1979). The account of CLS below is a personal one, though I think most of it would attract fairly general agreement.

I shall try to characterise CLS as concisely as possible in terms of five theoretical propositions, and a framework for critical analysis of discourse. Needless to say, this account is a highly schematic one, and readers who would like to have a fuller picture should consult some of the material referred to in the last paragraph.

(1) Language use – ‘discourse’ – shapes and is shaped by society

It is commonplace that use of language is socially determined, and that language varies according to t...