1887
Volume 31, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1461-0213
  • E-ISSN: 1570-5595

Abstract

Abstract

Any discussion of transdisciplinary applied linguistics needs to engage with three central questions. First, while disciplinarity may allow for disciplines to stay in place and engage with each other, disciplinarity implies a space beyond or above disciplines. As a result, we have to consider whether applied linguistics is seen as a discipline (in which case it is not transdisciplinary) or whether it is seen as a transdisciplinary field of study (in which case it is not a discipline). Second, while applied linguists may engage with work from other fields – sociology, geography, philosophy, cognitive science are common examples – this does not necessarily mean that we engage with those fields as disciplines. Rather, the engagement with such work is often on the basis that relevant thinkers are engaging themselves with broader epistemic shifts. Such work may therefore be seen as having to do with rather than disciplines. Third, a focus on transdisciplinarity obscures broader concerns about unequal relations of knowledge production, particularly between North and South. If applied linguistics is to become a responsible field of work, it needs to engage with southern epistemologies. In order to do so, applied linguistic practices can be more usefully understood as temporary assemblages of thought and action that come together at particular moments when language-related concerns need to be addressed. This flexible account helps us see how applied linguistic practices are assemblages of different language-oriented projects, epistemes and matters of concern.

This work is licensed under a license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aila.00015.pen
2019-03-12
2019-10-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aila.00015.pen.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/aila.00015.pen&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aboelezz, M.
    (2016) The geosemiotics of Tahrir Square: A study of the relationship between discourse and place. InL. Martín Rojo (Ed.), Occupy: The spatial dynamics of discourse in global protest movements (pp.23–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Albury, N. J.
    (2016) Defining Māori language revitalisation: A project in folk linguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20, 287–311. doi:  10.1111/josl.12183
    https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12183 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2017) How folk linguistic methods can support critical sociolinguistics. Lingua, 199, 36–49. 10.1016/j.lingua.2017.07.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.07.008 [Google Scholar]
  4. Amin, A. & Howell, P.
    (2016) Thinking the commons. InA. Amin & P. Howell (Eds.), Releasing the commons: rethinking the futures of the commons (pp.1–17). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315673172‑1
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315673172-1 [Google Scholar]
  5. Armaline, W.
    (2009) Thoughts on anarchist pedagogy and epistemology. InR. Amster, A. DeLeon, L. Fernandez, A. Nocella II, & D. Shannon (Eds.), Contemporary anarchist studies: An introductory anthology of anarchy in the academy (pp.136–146). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Becher, T.
    (1989) Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bennett, J.
    (2010) Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham: Duke University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bernstein, B.
    (2000) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity, 2nd Edition. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bogost, I.
    (2012) Alien phenomenology, or what it’s like to be a thing. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 10.5749/minnesota/9780816678976.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.5749/minnesota/9780816678976.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Braidotti, R.
    (2013) The posthuman. Cambridge: Polity.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Broughton, B.
    (2017) Popular education and mass literacy campaigns. Beyond ‘New Literacy Studies’. InK. Yasukawa & S. Black (Eds.), Beyond economic interests: Critical perspectives on adult literacy and numeracy in a globalised world (pp.149–164). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Canagarajah, A. S.
    (2018) Translingual practice as spatial repertoires: Expanding the paradigm beyond structuralist orientations. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 31–54. doi:  10.1093/applin/amx041
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx041 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chun, C.
    (2016) Mobilities of a linguistic landscape at Los Angeles City Hall Park. InL. Martín Rojo (Ed.), Occupy: The spatial dynamics of discourse in global protest movements (pp.77–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Coupland, N.
    (Ed.) (2016) Sociolinguistics: Theoretical debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107449787
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107449787 [Google Scholar]
  15. Couzens, V. & Eira, C.
    (2014) Meeting point: Parameters for the study of revival languages. InP. Austin & J. Sallabank (Eds.), Endangered languages: Beliefs and ideologies in language documentation and revitalisation (pp.313–333). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.5871/bacad/9780197265765.003.0015
    https://doi.org/10.5871/bacad/9780197265765.003.0015 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dasgupta, P.
    (1997) Foreword. InL. KhubchandaniRevisioning Boundaries: A plurilingual ethos (pp.11–29). New Delhi: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Davies, A.
    (1999) An introduction to applied linguistics: From theory to practice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (2005) A glossary of applied linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Dawney, L., S. Kirwan, Brigstocke, S. & J.
    (2016) Introduction: The promise of the commons. InJ. Brigstocke, L. Dawney, & S. Kirwan (Eds.), Space, Power and the Commons: The Struggle for Alternative Futures (pp.12–31). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Day, R.
    (2005) Gramsci Is Dead: Anarchist currents in the newest social movements, London: Pluto Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. De Bot, K.
    (2015) A history of applied linguistics: From 1980 to the present. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. De Korne, H., & Leonard, W.
    (2017) Reclaiming languages: Contesting and decolonising ‘language endangerment’ from the ground up. InW. Y. Leonard & H. D. Korne (Eds.), Language Documentation and Description (Vol.14, pp.5–14). London: EL Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. De Souza, L. M.
    (2017) Epistemic diversity, lazy reason, and ethical translation in postcolonial contexts. The case of Indigenous educational policy in Brazil. InC. Kerfoot & K. Hyltenstam (Eds.), Entangled discourses: South-north orders of visibility (pp.189–208). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315640006‑11
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315640006-11 [Google Scholar]
  24. Di Carlo, P.
    (2018) Towards an understanding of African endogenous multilingualism: Ethnography, language ideologies, and the supernatural. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 254, pp.139–163. 10.1515/ijsl‑2018‑0037
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2018-0037 [Google Scholar]
  25. Foucault, M.
    (1966) Les mots et les choses: Une archéologie des sciences humaines. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. García, O. & Li Wei
    (2014) Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137385765
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137385765 [Google Scholar]
  27. Godfrey-Smith, P.
    (2017) Other minds: The octopus and the evolution of intelligent life. London: William Collins.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (2001) New ways of meaning. The challenge to applied linguistics. InFill, A. & Mühlhäusler, P. (Eds.), The Ecolinguistics Reader. Language, ecology and environment (pp.175–202). London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Harris, R.
    (1990) On redefining linguistics. InH. Davis & T. Taylor (Eds.), Redefining linguistics (pp.18–52). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kaplan, R.
    (2002) Preface. InR. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kerfoot, C. & Hyltenstam, K.
    (2017) Introduction: Entanglement and orders of visibility. InC. Kerfoot & K. Hyltenstam (Eds.). Entangled Discourses: South-North Orders of Visibility (pp.1–15). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315640006‑1
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315640006-1 [Google Scholar]
  32. Khubchandani, L.
    (1997) Revisioning Boundaries: A plurilingual ethos. New Delhi: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kramsch, C.
    (2008) Ecological perspectives on foreign language education. Language Teaching, 41, 389–408. 10.1017/S0261444808005065
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005065 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2015) Applied linguistics: A theory of the practice. Applied Linguistics, 36(4), 454–465. 10.1093/applin/amv039
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv039 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2018) Trans-spatial utopias. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 108–115. 10.1093/applin/amx057
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx057 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kuhn, G.
    (2009) Anarchism, postmodernity, and poststructuralism. InR. Amster, A. DeLeon, L. Fernandez, A. Nocella II, & D. Shannon (Eds.), Contemporary anarchist studies: An introductory anthology of anarchy in the academy (pp.18–25). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kuhn, T.
    (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. (2nd edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Larsen, S. & Johnson, J.
    (2016) The agency of place: Toward a more-than-human geographical self. GeoHumanities, 2(1), 149–166. 10.1080/2373566X.2016.1157003
    https://doi.org/10.1080/2373566X.2016.1157003 [Google Scholar]
  39. Latour, B.
    (2004) Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225–248. 10.1086/421123
    https://doi.org/10.1086/421123 [Google Scholar]
  40. Levon, E.
    (2017) Situating sociolinguistics: Coupland – Theoretical Debates. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 21(2), 272–288. doi:  10.1111/josl.12233
    https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12233 [Google Scholar]
  41. Li, Wei
    (2018) Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30. 10.1093/applin/amx039
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx039 [Google Scholar]
  42. Lyotard, J.-F.
    (1984) The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Makoni, S.
    (2003) Review ofA. Davies, An introduction to applied linguistics: From practice to theoryandA. Pennycook, Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 130–137.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Makoni, S. & Pennycook, A.
    (2007) Disinventing and reconstituting languages, inS. Makoni & A. Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp.1–41). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. (2012) Disinventing multilingualism: from monological multilingualism to multilingua francas. InM. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism (pp.439–453). Routledge: New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Martín Rojo, L.
    (2016) Occupy: The spatial dynamics of discourse in global protest movements. InL. Martín Rojo (Ed.), Occupy: The spatial dynamics of discourse in global protest movements (pp.1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. May, S.
    (2014) Disciplinary divides, knowledge construction, and the multilingual turn. InS. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp.7–31). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. McCarthy, M.
    (2001) Issues in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. McNamara, T.
    (2015) Applied linguistics: The challenge of theory. Applied Linguistics. 36(4): 466–477. 10.1093/applin/amv042
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv042 [Google Scholar]
  50. Mignolo, W.
    (2011) The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options. Durham: Duke University Press. 10.1215/9780822394501
    https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822394501 [Google Scholar]
  51. Mufwene, S.
    (2016) A cost-and-benefit approach to language loss. InL. Filipović & M. Pütz (Eds.), Endangered Languages and Languages in Danger: Issues of documentation, policy, and language rights (pp.115–143). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/impact.42.06muf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.42.06muf [Google Scholar]
  52. Ndhlovu, F.
    (2017) Southern development discourse for Southern Africa: Linguistic and cultural imperatives. Journal of Multicultural Discourses12(2): 89–109. 10.1080/17447143.2016.1277733
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2016.1277733 [Google Scholar]
  53. Oda, M. & Takada, T.
    (2005) English Language Teaching in Japan. InG. Braine (Ed.), Teaching English to the World: History, Curriculum and Practice (pp.93–101). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Otsuji, E. & Pennycook, A.
    (2018) The translingual advantage: Metrolingual student repertoires, inChoi, J. & Ollerhead, S. (Eds.), Plurilingualism in teaching and learning: Complexities across contexts (pp.71–88). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315392462‑5
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315392462-5 [Google Scholar]
  55. Pennycook, A.
    (2001) Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. (2006) Uma lingüîstica aplicada transgressiva. InL. P. Moita Lopes (Org.) Por uma lingüîstica aplicada indisciplinar (pp.67–84). Sao Paulo: Parabola.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. (2007) Global Englishes and transcultural flows. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. (2010) Language as a local practice. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203846223
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203846223 [Google Scholar]
  59. (2017) Translanguaging and semiotic assemblages. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14(3), 269–282. 10.1080/14790718.2017.1315810
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2017.1315810 [Google Scholar]
  60. (2018) Posthumanist applied linguistics. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Pennycook, A., & Otsuji, E.
    (2014) Metrolingual multitasking and spatial repertoires: ‘Pizza mo two minutes coming’. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 18(2), 161–184. 10.1111/josl.12079
    https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12079 [Google Scholar]
  62. Pennycook, A. & Otsuji, E.
    (2015) Metrolingualism: Language in the city. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315724225
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315724225 [Google Scholar]
  63. (2017) Fish, phone cards and semiotic assemblages in two Bangladeshi shops in Sydney and Tokyo. Social Semiotics, 27(4), 434–450. 10.1080/10350330.2017.1334391
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2017.1334391 [Google Scholar]
  64. Rampton, B.
    (1997) Retuning in applied linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7, 3–25. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.1997.tb00101.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1997.tb00101.x [Google Scholar]
  65. Santos, B. d. S.
    (2012) Public sphere and epistemologies of the south. Africa Development, 37(1), 43–67.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. (2018) The end of the cognitive empire: The coming of age of epistemologies of the south. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Schatzki, T.
    (2010) The timespace of human activity: On performance, society, and history as indeterminate teleological events. Lanham: Lexington Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. W.
    (2007) Nexus analysis: Refocusing ethnography on action. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(5), 608–625. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2007.00342.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00342.x [Google Scholar]
  69. Thorne, S., & Lantolf, J.
    (2007) A linguistics of communicative activity. InS. Makoni & A. Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp.170–195). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Thurlow, C.
    (2016) Queering critical discourse studies or/and performing ‘post-class’ ideologies. Critical Discourse Studies, 13(5), 485–514. 10.1080/17405904.2015.1122646
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2015.1122646 [Google Scholar]
  71. Toohey, K., Dagenais, D., Fodor, A., Hof, L., Nuñez, O., & Singh, A.
    (2015) ‘That sounds so cooool’: Entanglements of children, digital tools, and literacy practices. TESOL Quarterly, 49(3), 461–485. 10.1002/tesq.236
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.236 [Google Scholar]
  72. Trowler, P.
    (2014) Depicting and Researching Disciplines: Strong and moderate essentialist approaches. Studies in Higher Education, 39 (10), 1720–1731. 10.1080/03075079.2013.801431
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.801431 [Google Scholar]
  73. Trowler, P., Saunders, M. & Bamber, V.
    (Eds.) (2012) Tribes and territories in the 21st-century. Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Varis, P.
    (2017) Superdiverse times and places: Media, mobility, conjunctures and structures of feeling. InK. Arnaut, M. Sif Karrebaek, M. Spotti, & J. Blommaert (Eds.). Engaging superdiversity: Recombining spaces, times and language practices (pp.25–46). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. van Leeuwen, T.
    (2018) Moral evaluation in critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies. doi:  10.1080/17405904.2018.1427120
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2018.1427120 [Google Scholar]
  76. Van Lier, L.
    (2000) From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. InJ. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp.155–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Widdowson, H. G.
    (2001) Coming to terms with reality: Applied linguistics in perspective. InD. Graddol (Ed.). Applied Linguistics for the 21st Century, AILA Review, 14, 2–17.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/aila.00015.pen
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): assemblage , episteme , posthumanism , southern theory and the commons
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error