Advertisement

Language Policy

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 633–635 | Cite as

Suresh Canagarajah: Translingual Practices and Neoliberal Policies: Attitudes and Strategies of African Skilled Migrants in Anglophone Workplaces (Springer Briefs in Linguistics)

Springer, Cham, 2017, vii + 66 pp, Pb $54.99, ISBN 978-3-319-41243-6
  • Rakesh M. Bhatt
Book Review
  • 32 Downloads

Progress in applied linguistics is evident when theoretically recalcitrant generalizations suddenly become expressible with a slight shift in paradigmatic perspective. The “multilingual turn” offered such a possibility: socio-linguistic and social-demographic theories of late-modernity/globalization had already demonstrated a critical need for accommodation of multilingualism in accounting for the complexity of contemporary linguistic interactions, both in real-physical and virtual-cyber spaces. The implications of such a move—“turn”—were, in fact, anticipated by scholars of multilingualism who had argued for more inclusive, plural communicative frameworks of language structure, acquisition, use, policies and practices (cf., inter alia Kachru 1976; Ferguson 1978; Kachru 1994; Sridhar 1994; Canagarajah 1999; Bhatt 2002). The (re)turn to multilingualism is indeed more urgent now than before, as it allows us to call into question the central constructs of applied linguistics, such as...

References

  1. Bhatt, R. M. (2002). Experts, dialects, and discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 74–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blommaert, J. (2007). Sociolinguistic scales. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Canagarajah, S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ferguson, C. (1978). Multilingualism as object of linguistic description. Studies in Linguistic Sciences, 8(2), 97–106.Google Scholar
  5. Flores, N. (2013). The unexamined relationship between neoliberalism and plurilingualism: A cautionary tale. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 500–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kachru, B. B. (1976). Models of English for the Third World: White man’s linguistic burden or language pragmatics. TESOL Quarterly, 10(2), 221–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kachru, Y. (1994). Monolingual bias in SLA research. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 795–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kubota, R. (2014). The multi/plural turn, postcolonial theory, and neoliberal multiculturalism. Applied Linguistics, 33, 1–22.Google Scholar
  9. Sridhar, S. N. (1994). A reality check for SLA theories. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 800–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations