Critical perspectives in intercultural language learning

ELIA Mon. I, pp. 17-38 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.mon.2019.i1.02 ELIA 17, 2017, pp. 15-45 15 Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2017.i17.02 Estudios de lingüística inglesa aplicada IMPROVING READING STRATEGY KNOWLEDGE IN YOUNG CHILDREN: WHAT SELF-REPORT QUESTIONNAIRES CAN REVEAL LA MEJORA DEL CONOCIMIENTO DE ESTRATEGIAS DE LECTURA EN NIÑOS: ¿QUÉ REVELAN LOS CUESTIONARIOS DE AUTOEVALUACIÓN? Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe Universidad del País Vasco, Spain [email protected] DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2017.i17.02 In the last 25 years, the topic of learning strategies has attracted a great deal of interest, quite often to analyse the use first (L1) and second language (L2) learners make of these strategies and how they can be helped to improve strategy knowledge. Although it is true that there has been considerable research on strategies, a smaller number of studies have attempted to explore the strategies that learners use in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) contexts, and even fewer when learning a third language (L3). This article seeks to fill that gap by reporting the findings of an intervention study into reading comprehension among young learners of English as an L3 in a multilingual (Spanish-Basque-English) context in the Basque Country. Estudios de lingüística inglesa aplicada CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES IN INTERCULTURAL LANGUAGE LEARNING PERSPECTIVAS CRÍTICAS EN EL APRENDIZAJE INTERCULTURAL DE LENGUAS Anthony J. Liddicoat University of Warwick, UK [email protected] DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.mon.2019.i1.02 Intercultural language teaching and learning is one manifestation of the critical turn in language education. Its critical dimension is characterised by a strong emphasis on self-reflexivity in both teaching and learning, and by a transformational agenda for language education (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013). Within language education, the critical project requires that the focus of language learning is to develop social actors capable of using language repertoires in ways that provide for agency both over language (in the choices they make about how to use their language resources) and through language (in the social possibilities they realise for themselves through their language repertoires). Within such a view of education, critical reflection comes to play an important role. To consider language education in such a way requires reconceptualising some of the fundamental starting assumptions of language education, which provides a basis for creating new emphases in both theory and practice. This article begins by examining the nature of this reconceptualisation and then ELIA Mon. I, pp. 17-38 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.mon.2019.i1.02 Critical perspectives in intercultural language learning 18 examines the consequences of such reconceptualising for teaching and learning. It examines data from language learners to exemplify the forms of learning involved in this manifestation of the critical turn in language education. Key words: Intercultural language learning, language learning, critical approach La enseñanza y el aprendizaje intercultural de lenguas es un ejemplo del cariz crítico que se ha adoptado en la enseñanza de lenguas. Su dimensión crítica se caracteriza por un fuerte énfasis en la reflexión personal tanto en la enseñanza como en el aprendizaje, así como por una aproximación transformadora (Liddicoat y Scarino, 2013). En el ámbito de la enseñanza de lenguas, el objetivo esencial consiste en que el enfoque del aprendizaje de lenguas se centre en desarrollar individuos capaces de usar repertorios lingüísticos de manera que sean sujetos activos tanto en el uso del lenguaje (en las elecciones que hacen sobre cómo usar sus recursos lingüísticos), como a través del lenguaje (en las posibilidades sociales que alcanzan por sí mismos a través de sus repertorios lingüísticos). Dentro de esa visión de la educación esta reflexión crítica juega un papel importante. Considerar la enseñanza de idiomas de esa manera requiere reconceptualizar algunos de los supuestos tradicionales de la educación de idiomas, lo que proporciona una base para crear nuevas áreas de actuación en la teoría y en la práctica. Este artículo comienza examinando la naturaleza de esta reconceptualización para seguidamente examinar las consecuencias de dicha reconceptualización para la enseñanza y el aprendizaje. Este estudio examina los datos recopilados con estudiantes de idiomas para ejemplificar las formas de aprendizaje patentes en esta enfoque crítico en la enseñanza de lenguas. Palabras clave: Interculturalidad, aprendizjae de lenguas, enfoque crítico 1. Criticality in Language Education Recent work in language education has sought to address the criticism that language pedagogy has been largely an untheorised endeavour (Phipps & Levine, 2012) and that theorisation is needed if language education was to be able to achieve the complex demands for language use in contemporary 19 Anthony J. Liddicoat ELIA Mon. I, pp. 17-38 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.mon.2019.i1.02 contexts of globalisation, mobility and international connectedness. One way of addressing the theoretical gap in language pedagogy has been to investigate the critical dimension of language teaching and learning and the role of language education in fostering criticality (Dasli & Díaz, 2017; Díaz, 2013; Liddicoat, 2017; Pennycook, 2001). Proposals for adopting a critical approach to language are characterised by a strong emphasis on self-reflexivity in teaching and learning, and by a transformational agenda for language education (Liddicoat, 2017). Such thinking draws from arguments within critical theory on the centrality of education for the critical enterprise. Habermas (1968), for example, theorises learning as fundamental in critical theory – learning is an emancipatory process that enables people to become self-determining social actors. He argues that, in learning, human beings need both knowledge of the world, which is developed through experiences of the world, and the reflective appropriation of human life, which enables understanding of the nature of experience. A part of the appropriation of human life involves transcending the self-referential nature of human thinking; that is, practices of interpretation that conceive experience from one’s own perspective only (Habermas, 1992). In order for human beings to come to understand each other they need to create a mutually shared subjectivity, and this subjectivity is a central element in the appropriation of human life. In language education, this appropriation is one that takes place across and between languages and cultures and involves a coming to understand that is created reflectively and reflexively across potential boundaries of language and cultures. Thus, we can conceptualise language learning as an engagement, through language and cultures, in coming to understand linguistically and culturally diverse others. The aim is to come to understanding for oneself rather than to come to a specific point of view about culturally contexted values, practices, etc. (Dasli, 2012). The critical project is not one of assimilation to the culture of the other, but rather a movement beyond self-referentiality towards a multi-perspectival view of human lived experience. This article will consider criticality in language learning and teaching from an intercultural perspective (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013) to identify some consequences of such an orientation when it comes to how we understand the nature and practice of language learning. The article will consider how language educators need to reconceptualise some of the ELIA Mon. I, pp. 17-38 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.mon.2019.i1.02 Critical perspectives in intercultural language learning 20 fundamental starting assumptions of language education as a basis for creating new emphases in both theory and practice. It will also give examples of what a critical perspective may look like in student learning. 2. Consequences for Understanding Language Education Adopting a critical perspective in language education involves a reconsideration of some key assumptions on which language education practice is based; what we mean by ‘language’, ‘culture’ and ‘learning’ as educators1. Conceptualisations of these constructs have significant implications not only for the practice of criticality in language education but also for its very possibility. 2.1. Conceptualisations of Language The conceptualisation of language is central to the conceptualisation of what is learned in language education. In many conceptualisations of language in language education, the emphasis very rarely moves beyond a focus on the structural system of the language; that is, grammar and vocabulary, or a view of language as a tool for communication as represented through the four macro-skills of speaking, listening, reading and writing. The view of communication found in such formulations is however often weak (Eisenchlas, 2009) and takes the form of pseudocommunication that is in reality little more than language practice (Ghosn, 2004). Such views of language focus on languages as autonomous entities and construct languages as separable and discrete phenomena. More recent thinking (e.g. Creese & Blackledge, 2015; García & Li Wei, 2014) has critiqued this view of language as having little reality for understanding plurilingualism and plurilingual individuals and has argued that we need to see languages as much more interdependent and interrelated and to focus more on the idea of complex linguistic repertories. Moreover, rather than placing emphasis solely on languages as a tool kit of elements that can be used for communicative purposes, we need to focus more on language as meaning-making potential (Halliday, 1993) and to consider how languages shape and influence the processes of creating, communicating and interpreting meanings. Moreover, we need to recognise the ‘peopled’ nature of languages; they are not autonomous constructs external to 21 Anthony J. Liddicoat ELIA Mon. I, pp. 17-38 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.mon.2019.i1.02 individual speakers but rather they are embodied in speakers and constituted in contexts of use to communicate personalised meanings relevant to speakers’ lifeworlds. Language is thus something that is individual, personal and created in and through communication rather than simply an autonomous system of codified and conventionalised norms (Shohamy, 2006). Language is not only personal but also shared, reflecting common culturally contextualised experiences and expectations about making and interpreting meanings and constructing affinities based around language use. As meaning-making practices, languages are culturally contexted; meaning is not made in isolation form other cultural practices of signification, and conceptualisations of language also need to consider the relationship between language and culture as they function together in the creation and interpretation of meanings (Liddicoat, 2009). 2.2. Conceptualisations of Culture The idea that language and culture work together in creating and interpreting meanings already foreshadows a particular conceptualisation of culture for language learning. In particular, it presupposes a movement away from culturalism (Bayart, 2002), which represents cultures as monolithic, essentialised and static, with a particular focus on the nation as the locus of cultural practice towards a view of culture as contingent, created and highly variable, involving individual participation in purposeful social life (Abdallah-Pretceille, 1986, 2011; Barbot & Dervin, 2011). This movement also presupposes a shift from viewing culture as a body of knowledge that is transmitted over time to members of a particular group to one that sees culture as a repertoire of resources that are creatively constructed and selectively deployed in order to achieve social goals and to work towards mutual comprehension (Sewell, 1999). That is, culture is a meaningmaking resource that allows members of a group to be understood in particular ways and enables them to shape how they and their actions are perceived by others. Such a way of thinking brings language and culture close together in that both are involved in the creation, communication and interpretation of meanings. It is this emphasis on meaning that brings both language and culture into focus for critical learning, as learning an additional language and its ways of use with a cultural context opens ways of highlighting self- ELIA Mon. I, pp. 17-38 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.mon.2019.i1.02 Critical perspectives in intercultural language learning 22 referential ways of understanding and developing insights into the multiperspectival nature of meaning and the role of language and culture in shaping how human beings communicate. The movement away from culturalism to an idea of cultures as repertoires of practices that influence meaning making and interpretation leads to a questioning of how different intercultural communication is from other forms of communication. Often, intercultural communication studies have emphasised meaning breakdown as the main focus of interest and have constructed an image of culture as a problem for communication (Piller, 2011). However, much communication that is not considered intercultural involves coming to understand people who do not share our own experiential and interpretative starting points and human beings regularly engage successfully with diverse others without problems. Holliday argues that communication of necessity involves the creation of small cultures of interaction in which participants come together to interact and in order to do so they need to establish a common set of assumptions about meaning making for the purposes of their interaction (Holliday, 2010, 2016). Thus, intercultural communication can be understood as a constituent part of communication, which always involves reciprocal processes of meaning-making and interpretation, not as a special case of communication characterised particularly by meaning breakdown. There are however some issues that are especially salient in intercultural interactions. The most obvious of these is language; intercultural interactions are usually also interlinguistic and processes of meaning-making and interpretation are inherently linguistic processes (Gadamer, 1960) in which all of the participants’ languages will play a role in what is said and how it is understood. A further difference lies in the politics of diversity that provide the context in which intercultural communication takes place. This includes attitudes to and stereotypes about cultural groups, beliefs that a culture may be superior or inferior to others, with associated beliefs about members of cultural groups, etc. (Holliday, 2016). Such beliefs shape how communication occurs and how the participants and their contributions are perceived. The interlinguistic nature of intercultural communication also means that a politics of language may also be involved where participants identify each other as either native- or non-native-speakers of the language. Such identifications influence perceptions of speakers’ legitimacy and thus the legitimacy of their contributions and 23 Anthony J. Liddicoat ELIA Mon. I, pp. 17-38 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.mon.2019.i1.02 interpretations (Liddicoat, 2016b; Liddicoat & Tudini, 2013). Such construction of self and other in relation to the language(s) being used raise potential issues of power in intercultural interactions that can profoundly shape how such interactions take place and how they are understood by participants. Such issues become salient in a critical perspective on language learning. 2.3. Conceptualisations of learning Conceptualisations of learning can be considered from two different perspectives. One is the perspective of the nature of the learning produced through language education; that is, what does it mean to have learned a language? The second is the process through which learning happens; that is, what does it mean to learn when language is the object of learning? In language education, the product of learning has usually focused on the idea of proficiency understood as what a language learner can do in the language described in relation to an absolute scale (Scarino, 2012). Such understandings of proficiency have tended to focus on the nativespeaker as an ideal speaker-hearer and the learner as progressing from less native-speaker-like states to more native-speaker-like states. In such comparisons, the learner is compared with a native speaker who is envisaged as a monolingual and monocultural individual (Kramsch, 1999). In this way, the identity of learner as a plurilingual individual is rendered invisible as the points of comparison are not constructed in plurilingual terms. The object of learning in such comparisons focuses on the structural system of the language, where native speakers are assumed to have some form of complete knowledge and emphasises the accuracy of the learners’ knowledge (or lack thereof) rather than the communicative demands of interlinguistic and intercultural communication. The native speaker model thus tends to ignore the fact that plurilingual and pluricultural individuals have needs (and abilities) that native-speakers do not in that they must use the language they are acquiring to communicate using a complex linguistic repertoire with others who may not share the same starting points or interpersonal and interactive practices (Kramsch, 1999). Reconceptualising the product of learning as the ability to communicate interlinguistically and ELIA Mon. I, pp. 17-38 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.mon.2019.i1.02 Critical perspectives in intercultural language learning 24 interculturally means that language as a structural system needs to be seen as just one element of what a learner needs to be able to do and that complex issues of making and interpreting meanings across languages and cultural contexts needs to be given equal attention. In considering learning as a process, learning theory in language education has often been eclectic and atheoretical (Liddicoat, in press). Where more theorised approaches have been developed, these have usually been drawn from Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research and have characterised language learning as being different from other forms of learning. One particularly strong orientation in learning theory has been the dichotomy between acquisition (unconscious processes of hypothesis formation based on input) and learning (conscious processes developing representations of a language) (Krashen, 1981). This view, which underlies Communicative Language Teaching, has effectively downgraded the significance of teaching, which ultimately focuses on a conscious process, and of the interpersonal, as the process of acquisition is seen only in internal cognitive terms. More recent SLA theories have re-emphasised the interpersonal nature of learning drawing on the work of the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1934/2005), which views learning as socially and culturally situated. In this view, language learning is seen as a process that is achieved through interaction with more competent others, who provide support for development. In both of these theoretical approaches with SLA, the emphasis has been placed on acquisition of the structural system of the language; that is, the focus of learning is the same, it is only understanding of the process that varies (e.g. Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000; Swain, Lapkin, Knouzi, Suzuki, & Brooks, 2009). This is perhaps unsurprising as the focus of interest in SLA research has been on the language system rather than on broader issues of language use and the relationship of language with wider processes of meaning making and interpretation. The result of the reliance of language education theory on SLA has thus often been to limit educational thinking to theories of learning specific to the learning of linguistic structures rather than considering wider educative goals. Theories of learning developed outside SLA in the area of general education can offer insights into the nature of learning that can expand how language educators view learning and open prospects for different forms of educational thinking (Liddicoat, in press). 25 Anthony J. Liddicoat ELIA Mon. I, pp. 17-38 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.mon.2019.i1.02 One particularly insightful way of thinking about learning is Sfard’s (1998) distinction between metaphors of learning as acquisition and as participation. The acquisition metaphor emphasises the idea of learning as the assimilation of a body of knowledge. Knowledge is conceived as a commodity and learning as the transfer of this commodity from outside to the learner2. The participation metaphor emphasises learning as a way of becoming a member of a community of practice by developing the discursive and behavioural practices required for participation in that community. The participation metaphor presupposes learning as a process of apprenticeship in practices that results in the ability to participate in the community as a fully competent member. While Sfard identifies two different approaches, she does not seek to identify the better approach but rather argues that a well-developed theory of learning needs to integrate the tow, pointing to the need to for complex theories of learning. Sfard’s model of two metaphors has been expanded by the work of Paavola et al. (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2005; Paavola, Lipponen, & Hakkarainen, 2004), who add a third metaphor: knowledge creation. They argue that Sfard’s metaphors assume that knowledge exists before the act of learning but Paavola et al. maintain that knowledge can also be created during learning and students can learn things through processes of discovery that were not previously known by them or by others. They also adopt an additive position, arguing that a well-founded learning theory needs all three metaphors. Outside SLA, but in the field of language education, Liddicoat and Scarino (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013; Scarino & Liddicoat, 2016) draw on this work on metaphors of learning to propose the idea of learning as a hermeneutic process. In this view, the learner is seen as an interpreter of meanings working towards understanding through a process of critical reflection on experience. Learning is thus a process of coming to understand experiences. This means that learning is centrally linked to a process of coming to understand the nature of interpretation, what is involved in interpretation, how languages, cultures and experiences shape how people interpret messages and why interpretations can be different for different people. Reflection plays a central role in interpretation as learning, since it is through processes of reflection that learners come to understand things that were previously not understood. Liddicoat and Scarino, like the other theorists discussed above, also argue that this theory of learning is not ELIA Mon. I, pp. 17-38 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.mon.2019.i1.02 Critical perspectives in intercultural language learning 32 where interpretation is problematic and later by an understanding that there are different affordances for interpretation available in the new context. They are working towards understanding of linguistically and culturally diverse others and their processes of meaning making and developing this understanding for themselves as ways of accounting for their lived experiences of diversity. In the examples, the learners are engaging with language as meaning making. This conceptualisation of language as meaning-making is consequential for the ways that learners can begin to engage with a new language and its cultural context. It allows an engagement with meaning as a nuanced, contextualised and emergent process through producing, interpreting and reflecting on meaning. This allows for language to become a resource for the reflective appropriation of human life in that experience becomes transformed through critical insight that enables an emerging understanding both of self and other. These critical insights have the potential to provide resources for agency in interaction; decisions about action are not simply decisions about the grammar and vocabulary to be used but decisions about consequential personal and social issues such as self-presentation and the construction of relationships. These insights thus have the potential to provide learners with resources for decision-making about future communication. These learners do not experience language simply as a structural system but also as a meaning-making resource that allows or constrains particular ways of acting. They are coming to understand that communication is an action of producing and sending messages that is highly contextualised in languages, cultures, experiences and expectations. Their learning is a process of coming to understand that operates both on the old and the new. They are coming to understand their own previous experiences of making and interpreting meanings in new ways. These experiences and their assumptions about meaning and how it is communicated (that is their self-referentiality) has become an object of reflection that reconstructs them as situated and susceptible of different interpretations and enactments. They are also coming to understand the practices and meanings of newly encountered others, which they not only experience as different, but also appropriate them through their reflection on them and the comparisons they make between different perspectives. 33 Anthony J. Liddicoat ELIA Mon. I, pp. 17-38 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.mon.2019.i1.02 5. Concluding comments Moving towards a critical orientation in language education provides possibilities for different forms of engagement with linguistic and cultural diversity through the process of learning an additional language. Adopting such an orientation is not, however, simply a matter of asking new questions and introducing new focuses in the classroom that can be added onto existing practices. It involves a rethinking of basic concepts and assumptions that shape the foundations of teaching practice. In this way, a critical orientation is not just an element of learning but rather a reengagement with and re-theorising of what it means to teach and learn a language. References Abdallah-Pretceille, M. (1986). Vers une pédagogie interculturelle. Paris: Economica. Abdallah-Pretceille, M. (2011). La pédagogie interculturelle: Entre multiculturalisme et universalisme. Linguarum Arena, 2, 91-10. Araújo e Sá, M. H., Ceberio, M. E., & Melo, S. (2007). De la présentation de soi à l’interaction avec l’autre. Le rôle des représentations dans des rencontres interculturelles plurilingues. Lidil. Revue de linguistique et de didactique des langues, 36, 119-140. https://doi.org/10.4000/lidil.2493 Barbot, M.-J., & Dervin, F. (2011). L’interculturel en formation, un concept à renouveler. Education permanente, 186, 5-17. Bayart, J.-F. (2002). The illusion of cultural identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2015). Translanguaging and identity in Educational Settings. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 20-35. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0267190514000233 Dasli, M. (2012). Theorizations of intercultural communication. In G. S. Levine & A. Phipps (Eds.), Critical intercultural theory and language pedagogy (pp. 95-111). Boston, MA: Heinle ,Cengage Learning. ELIA Mon. I, pp. 17-38 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.mon.2019.i1.02 Critical perspectives in intercultural language learning 34 Dasli, M., & Díaz, A. (2017). Tracing the ‘critical’ trajectory of language and intercultural communication pedagogy. In M. Dasli & A. Díaz (Eds.), The critical turn in language and intercultural communication pedagogy (pp. 27-45). London & New York: Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315667294 Díaz, A. R. (2013). Developing critical languaculture pedagogies in higher education: Theory and practice. Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783090365 Eisenchlas, S. (2009). Conceptualising “communication” in second language acquisition. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 29(1), 45-58. https://doi. org/10.1080/07268600802516376 Gadamer, H.-G. (1960). Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. García, O., & Li Wei. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi. org/10.1057/9781137385765 Ghosn, I.-K. (2004). Story as culturally appropriate content and social context for young English language learners: A look at Lebanese primary school classes. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 17(2), 109-126. https://doi. org/10.1080/07908310408666687 Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor. Habermas, J. (1968). Erkenntnis und Interesse. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Habermas, J. (1992). Nachmetaphysisches Denken. Frankfurt-am-Main: Suhrkamp. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0898- 5898(93)90026-7 Holliday, A. (2010). Intercultural communication and ideology. London: Sage. Holliday, A. (2016). Revisiting intercultural competence: Small culture formation on the go through threads of experience. International Journal of Bias, 35 Anthony J. Liddicoat ELIA Mon. I, pp. 17-38 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.mon.2019.i1.02 Identity and Diversities in Education (IJBIDE), 1(2), 1-14. https://doi. org/10.4018/IJBIDE.2016070101 Kramsch, C. (1999). The privilege of the intercultural speaker. In M. Byram & M. Fleming (Eds.), Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective: Approaches through Drama and Ethnography (pp. 16-31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Liddicoat, A. J. (2006). Learning the culture of interpersonal relationships: Students’ understandings of person reference in French. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(1), 55-80. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2006.003 Liddicoat, A. J. (2009). Communication as culturally contexted practice: A view from intercultural communication. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 29(1), 115-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268600802516400 Liddicoat, A. J. (2014). Pragmatics and intercultural mediation in intercultural language learning. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(2), 259-277. https://doi. org/10.1515/ip-2014-0011 Liddicoat, A. J. (2016a). Intercultural mediation, intercultural communication and translation. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 24(3), 347-353. https:// doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2014.980279 Liddicoat, A. J. (2016b). Native and non-native speaker identities in interaction: Trajectories of power. Applied Linguistics Review. https://doi.org/10.1515/ applirev-2016-0018 Liddicoat, A. J. (2017). Interpretation and critical reflection in intercultural language learning: Consequences of a critical perspective for the teaching and learning of pragmatics. In M. Dasli & A. Díaz (Eds.), The critical turn in language and intercultural communication pedagogy: Theory, research and practice (pp. 22-39). London & New York: Routledge. Liddicoat, A. J. (in press). Teaching languages from an intercultural perspective: Rethinking the nature of learning. In R. Arber, M. Weinmann, & J. Blackmore (Eds.), Innovative languages education. New York: Routledge. ELIA Mon. I, pp. 17-38 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.mon.2019.i1.02 Critical perspectives in intercultural language learning 36 Liddicoat, A. J., & Scarino, A. (2013). Intercultural language teaching and learning. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781118482070 Liddicoat, A. J., & Tudini, V. (2013). Expert-novice orientations: Native speaker power and the didactic voice in online intercultural interaction. In F. Sharifian & M. Jamarani (Eds.), Intercultural Communication in the New Era (pp. 181-197). New York: Routledge. McConachy, T., & Liddicoat, A. J. (2016). Metapragmatic awareness and intercultural competence: The role of reflection and interpretation in developing intercultural understanding. In F. Dervin & Z. Gross (Eds.), Intercultural competence: Alternative approaches for different times (pp. 3-30). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58733-6_2 Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor - An emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education, 14, 535-557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-004-5157-0 Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557-576. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074004557 Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language leanirng as particiaption and the (re)contruction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf & A. Pavlenko (Eds.), Sociocultrual Theory and Second Language Learning: Recent Advances (pp. 155-177). New York: Oxford University Press. Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410600790 Phipps, A., & Levine, G. S. (2012). What is language pedagogy for? In G. S. Levine & A. Phipps (Eds.), Critical intercultural theory and language pedagogy (pp. 1-14). Boston, MA: Heinle ,Cengage Learning. Piller, I. (2011). Intercultural communication: A critical introduction. Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press. Scarino, A. (2012). A rationale for acknowledging the diversity of learner achievements in learning particular languages in school education in Australia. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics. S Series, 35(3), 231- 250. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.35.3.01sca 37 Anthony J. Liddicoat ELIA Mon. I, pp. 17-38 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.mon.2019.i1.02 Scarino, A., & Liddicoat, A. J. (2016). Reconceptualising learning in transdisciplinary languages education L2 Journal, 8(4), 20-35. https://doi. org/10.5070/L28429918 Sewell, W. H., Jr. (1999). The concept(s) of culture. In V. E. Bonnell & L. Hunt (Eds.), Beyond the cultural turn (pp. 35-61). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4-13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X027002004 Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London ; New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203387962 Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W., & Brooks, L. (2009). Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 5-29. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00825.x Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/2005). Мышление и речь. Moskow: Smysl. Notes 1 For a fuller discussion of the reconceptualisation of language culture and learning involved in an intercultural perspective see also Liddicoat and Scarino (2013), Scarino and Liddicoat (2016) and Liddicoat (in press, 2019). 2 This is thus a different use of acquisition from the way it is understood in SLA work based on Krashen’s (1981) cognitivist theory. 3 For more discussion of the problem of encoding relationships in French for English-speaking learners see Liddicoat (2006). First version received: July, 2019 Final version accepted: October, 2019