Re-Examining and Re-Envisioning Criticality in Language Studies: Theories and Praxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As critical perspectives in language studies have gained legitimacy and even mainstream status in applied linguistics, it is necessary to re-examine the meaning of criticality in language studies and to re-envision criticality for further development. The authors explore criticality from several theoretical perspectives as well as from the notion of praxis. They review three major theoretical threads—namely, postmodernist constructionism including poststructuralist theory, Marxist-influenced theories, and postcolonial theories—and examine how these frameworks have influenced critical applied linguistics and how their criticisms of other perspectives within the critical framework are historically, ideologically, and geopolitically implicated. Although these theories constitute the core of conceptual criticality, praxis is essential for critical enactment. The authors thus unpack the meaning of praxis and discuss how reflexivity, action, and transformation must inform the continuing (re)envisioning of criticality in contemporary society and institutions where it is necessary to confront neoliberalism as a new kind of domination
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.074 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.205 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.047 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".