Scan barcode
thatsoneforthebooks's review
5.0
In Language as a Local Practice (2010), Alastair Pennycook develops two fundamental theories: 1) language is a practice, and 2) these practices are local. Building on the work of Schatzki (2002), Bourdieu (1977), and De Certeau (1984), Pennycook describes practices as “bundles of activities that are organized into a coherent ways of doing things” -- for example, a cluster of banking practices could include going to the bank, standing in line, filling out a deposit slip, as well as the processes of online and phone banking (Pennycook, 2010, p. 25). He asserts that examining language use through everyday activities enables us to understand the sociopolitical consequences of language use, which aligns Pennycook against structuralists’ emphasis on structure and post-structuralists’ focus on discourse.
He also responds to issues of repetition and creativity. Some theorists argue that the range of possible utterances is limited, and therefore, each utterance is a repetitive iteration that can never be unique. In contrast, Pennycook argues, “Repetition, even of the ‘same thing,’ always produces something new, so that when we repeat an idea, a word, a phrase or an event, it is always renewed” (Pennycook, 2010, p. 43). Because language is grounded in local practices, its social, historical, and local contexts will always make each iteration (even those that are conscious imitations) unique.
His ideas about the socio-historical context of language practices tie directly into his theories about languages practices always being rooted in a local context. Pennycook defines local as “the grounded and the particular” (Pennycook, 2010, p. 14). He asserts that an examination of the local does not necessarily entail a bottom-up or micro- approach, but rather can include elite language practices, such as the Queen of England’s Christmas message or a Presidential speech. All language practices are fundamentally local, because they derive from an individual, a community, an institution, etc., and represent local perspectives, ideas, and worldviews. Global practices, in contrast, refer to “the apparent co-occurrence in different times and places of local practices” (Pennycook, 2010, p. 128). Therefore, Pennycook argues that all language practices are rooted in the local.
He also responds to issues of repetition and creativity. Some theorists argue that the range of possible utterances is limited, and therefore, each utterance is a repetitive iteration that can never be unique. In contrast, Pennycook argues, “Repetition, even of the ‘same thing,’ always produces something new, so that when we repeat an idea, a word, a phrase or an event, it is always renewed” (Pennycook, 2010, p. 43). Because language is grounded in local practices, its social, historical, and local contexts will always make each iteration (even those that are conscious imitations) unique.
His ideas about the socio-historical context of language practices tie directly into his theories about languages practices always being rooted in a local context. Pennycook defines local as “the grounded and the particular” (Pennycook, 2010, p. 14). He asserts that an examination of the local does not necessarily entail a bottom-up or micro- approach, but rather can include elite language practices, such as the Queen of England’s Christmas message or a Presidential speech. All language practices are fundamentally local, because they derive from an individual, a community, an institution, etc., and represent local perspectives, ideas, and worldviews. Global practices, in contrast, refer to “the apparent co-occurrence in different times and places of local practices” (Pennycook, 2010, p. 128). Therefore, Pennycook argues that all language practices are rooted in the local.