5.1 Critical Intercultural Language Pedagogies
Adriana Diaz
INITIAL REFLECTIONS
- What ideas about language, culture, and communication have shaped the way you’ve learned – and been taught – to teach?
- What does it mean to teach languages “critically” and “interculturally” in a world where violent geopolitical conflict, ecological breakdown, displacement, and injustice are part of everyday reality for many people?
- In our language classrooms, whose knowledges, stories, and ways of being are valued and made visible, and whose are dismissed, ignored, or turned into something to be consumed?
- In what ways might our curricular choices, classroom practices, or institutional norms unintentionally reproduce the very patterns of harm (extraction, erasure, hierarchies) that underpin today’s interconnected global crises?
- What kinds of language teaching practices can help us face the discomfort of complicity, loss, and uncertainty, not to control or fix, but to act with care, humility, and a sense of shared responsibility?
These questions are not meant to elicit quick or comfortable answers. They are meant to open space for discomfort, for responsibility, and for the possibility of doing things differently.
Introduction
It is probably a truism that we live in an increasingly interconnected world. However, despite these connections, we must also acknowledge the pervasive ‘disconnect’ with complex parallel realities that significantly affect communities locally and globally.
Against this complex existential landscape, languages education emerges as a gateway to exploring – and (re)connecting with – our own and others’ identities and struggles, and to engaging meaningfully with difference. As poignantly asserted by Gounari “(…) what we do in education matters. What we do in the language classroom matters. How we do it matters” (2020, p. 17, emphasis added).
The title of this chapter reflects the combination of three key concepts that aim to respond to this statement: critical, intercultural and pedagogies; all three converging around (world) languages education.[1] This chapter starts by the ‘what’, that is, by tracing the genealogy of these concepts and theoretical frameworks that inform Critical Intercultural Language Pedagogies (CILP) in order to provide a concise introduction into this topic. After exploring the genealogies of these theoretical frameworks, we turn our attention to the ‘how’, that is, their enactment in the classroom with a focus on the principles underpinning the design of transformative learning experiences that may lead to liberation and social change. The chapter closes by identifying emerging theoretical lenses that may build on and expand our understanding and enactment of CILP.
It is also important to note that in this chapter the term pedagogies in its plural form has been purposefully used to actively resist and move beyond prescriptive ways of conceptualizing (critical intercultural) language learning and teaching methodologies. In other words, there is not one single universal way of doing things, of conceptualizing ‘best’ practice. Alternatively, thinking about a collection of situated, principled practices allows for tailoring these understandings to specific contexts.
Disentangling conceptual foundations: A Deep Dive into ‘Critical, Intercultural, Language, and Pedagogies’
What comes to mind when you think of the word ‘critical’?
How would you translate this word into other languages in your linguistic repertoire?
Etymologically speaking, this word comes from the Latin term criticus, which, in turn, derives from the Greek κριτικός — able to discern — and the verb κρίνειν, meaning to separate, divide, distinguish between two things or people or among a group of things or people (Lacorte & Atienza, 2018). In what we know today as ‘critical’ pedagogy (in the Western world)[2], this word has acquired a political connotation, which views teaching as a political act, resisting the neutrality of knowledge, by challenging students to examine (discern, distinguish) the power structures and status quo that shape their/our own realities, dreams, and desires. As such, teaching is strongly committed “to the unwavering liberation of oppressed populations and a belief in the historical possibility of change” (Darder, 2007, p. 113).
This conceptualization of the word ‘critical’ brings into play educational theories and philosophies, which can be traced back to the second half of the 20th century in Europe. Tracing the historical trajectories of its intellectual roots is important because ‘historicity’ is a core aspect of how critical pedagogies are understood and enacted. This understanding of the word ‘critical’ is steeped in the school of thought developed by intellectuals in the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt in Germany, better known as the ‘Frankfurt School’, who advanced what we know today as ‘Critical Theory’, most notably, Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, and later, Jürgen Habermas. This school of thought, which challenged the constructs of rationality, neutrality and objectivity to consider subjectivity, socially and contextually constructed knowledge, was also heavily influenced by Marxist and neo-Marxist theory. Inspired by these theorizations and set against anti-capitalist and anti-fascist struggles at the time, the political writings of Italian intellectual Antonio Gramsci (Hoare & Smith, 1971) complemented these theories with the concept of hegemony, which refers to the dynamics through which a dominant group can exert power and (ideological) control over a subordinate, oppressed group. The works of French philosopher Michel Foucault on knowledge, power, and resistance further informed the development of these ‘critical’ theoretical frameworks (e.g., Foucault, 1970, 1977, 1987).
Progressive educators and pedagogy theorists in North and South America would lean into this foundational theoretical work to shape what we know today as ‘critical pedagogy’, specifically concerned with social and educational change, among them, John Dewey, W.E.B. Du Bois (grandfather of Critical Race Theory), Paulo Freire (1970, 1985), Henry Giroux (1988), Peter McLaren, Joe L. Kincheloe and Antonia Darder, to name a few (see Apple et al., 2009). Brazilian educator Paulo Freire (1921-1997) has arguably been one of the most influential ones. In his seminal work Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), he conceptualized “education as a liberatory process intended to bring about radical social changes to redress injustices in society” (El Ashmawi & Frazier, 2022, p. 11). This text also marked a move away from the banking model of education, towards a problem-posing one, which “is not confined to the old, paternalistic teacher-student relationship” (Díaz & Dasli, 2017, p. 11) and is instead anchored in promoting leaners’ conscientização, problematizing taken-for-granted habits and knowledge(s) that may have not been previously questioned, nor even thought about. While originally concerned with issues of oppression stemming from socioeconomic inequalities, over time, scholarly attention expanded to other societal struggles such as racism, systemic gender-based discrimination and violence against women, heteronormative oppression, as well as environmental crises, among others (Lacorte & Atienza, 2018).[3]
The key role that language plays in both shaping and (re)producing dominant ideologies and power imbalances, as well as the ways in which it can be weaponized against marginalized communities, also make it fertile ground for empowering those communities to resist taken-for-granted beliefs and assumptions. Against this backdrop, ‘Critical Language Pedagogy’, albeit under many other guises—e.g., critical language awareness, critical literacy, critical bilingualism, etc.—has emerged as a key area of research interest, particularly, in the field of English language teaching (see, specifically, Graham Crooke’s body of work, more recently, Crookes & Abednia, 2022; and, Gounari, 2020, for a review of studies in this area). Comparatively, the uptake in the field of world languages education has not been as extensive. However, this critical dimension started to attract much scholarly interest over the last few decades, most notably, since the early 2000s, in the United States (see, Canagarajah, 2005; the Research Timeline synthezised by Crookes, 2022; as well as Kubota & Austin, 2007; Norton & Toohey, 2004; and Reagan & Osborn, 2020).
There are several examples across world languages scholarship which are worth noting. Most notably, Claire Kramsch’s influential work spanning several decades, with articulation of a critical framing for (German) language teaching centered on “awareness of and reflection on the indexicality, subjectivity, and historicity of discourse” (Kramsch et al., 2007). In the case of Italian, we have Formato (2018) and Fabbian and Carney (2018a, 2018b), who provide illustrative examples of curriculum design underpinned by principles of critical language pedagogy. In the North-American context, Jennifer Leeman (Leeman, 2005, 2014) and Maite Correa (2011, 2016), for instance, advocate for the implementation of Critical Pedagogy in the context of Spanish as a Heritage Language; so does Claudia Holguín Mendoza and the various projects she leads to raise learners’ critical language awareness (CLA) (Holguín Mendoza, 2018; Holguín Mendoza et al., 2018); while Tracy Quan (2021) has also looked at the critical dimension of Spanish language teacher education. Nevertheless, Lacorte and Atienza (2018, p. 137) remind us of the “limited attention given to date to the critical dimensions of teaching Spanish as a second language (L2),” emphasizing the need to continue exploring and integrating more nuanced, culturally sensitive, and socially aware approaches that address the complexities of language learning within diverse contexts.
It is important to note that while the critical dimension in languages education has evolved (and continues to do so) under many guises, during the 1990s, a paradigmatic shift in the way language learning was conceptualized paved the way for considering another important dimension of communication through a critical lens. The field of world languages education was no longer defined primarily in terms of the acquisition of communicative competence (Hymes, 1972) and monolingual native speaker fluency; instead, its goal began to be articulated in terms of the development of intercultural communicative competence (ICC) and ‘intercultural speakers’ (Byram, 1997; Byram & Zarate, 1994). A key component of ICC was ‘critical cultural awareness/political education’ also labelled ‘savoir s’engager’ among other ‘savoirs’ (Álvarez Valencia & Michelson, 2023; Byram, 2012; Byram et al., 2001). According to Guilherme and Sawyer, however, this component “transcends intercultural communicative competence because, for one thing, it involves rethinking and reexperiencing the concept of cultural identity itself” (2021, p. 189).
What comes to mind when you think of the word ‘intercultural’?
How would you translate this word into other languages in your linguistic repertoire?
Here, the prefix inter– is used to denote ‘in-between’, and the multifaceted word ‘culture’ embodies a post-structuralist conceptualization which sees ‘culture’ as co-constructed in interaction, through the dynamic interplay of individuals’ identity/ies and language(s), rather than as an essentialist, homogenous, static notion (Risager, 2006, 2007). This focus on the ‘intercultural’ perspective of human communication foregrounded active ‘mediation between’ and ‘transcendence of’ (linguistic and cultural) diversity in interaction (Liddicoat, 2022).
Nevertheless, some of the ways in which the prefix ‘inter-‘ has been used have remained problematic, as they tend to reify difference and reinforce rigid boundaries constructed through binary oppositions, which are rooted in an assumption of a priori separateness between cultures (Ferri, 2018). Against this backdrop, theories of hybridity and ‘thirdness’ came into play to challenge binary opposites such as the ‘here and there’, ‘us and them’, ‘self and other’, ‘native and target’ cultures, etc. (Kramsch, 1993, 1998). In this context, Kramsch’s focus on the symbolic dimension of communication also emerged as a way to move away from the denotative meaning of language in interaction to the critical examination and reflection on the symbolic value of language and discourses used “between people who speak different languages and occupy different and sometimes unequal subject positions” (Kramsch, 2011, p. 360).
Liddicoat and Scarino, leading scholars in the articulation of the ‘intercultural’ dimension as an ‘orientation/perspective’ in languages education, particularly in the Australian context, have defined it as follows (2013, p. 29):
An intercultural perspective implies the transformational engagement of the learner in the act of learning. The goal of learning is to decenter learners from their pre-existing assumptions and practices and to develop an intercultural identity through engagement with an additional culture. The borders between self and other are explored, problematized, and redrawn.
As may be extrapolated from this definition, there are many points of intersection between ‘intercultural’ language learning and ‘critical’ pedagogies, particularly, in the way that learning is conceptualized. Overall, tracing the convergence of the ‘critical’ and ‘intercultural’ dimensions of interaction through ‘language pedagogies’, Phipps and Guilherme, (2004, p. 3) contend: “a critical pedagogy of (foreign) language/culture education and of intercultural communication/interaction implies a critical use of language(s), a critical approach to one’s own and other cultural backgrounds and a critical view of intercultural interaction”.
While there is some consensus around the definition of this ‘intercultural’ dimension in languages education, the related concept of ‘interculturality’ remains a contested one. Part of this contestation stems from the way in which scholarly interest in this area has evolved across disciplines (from sociology to Applied Linguistics, and from Intercultural Communication Studies and Languages Education). However, another aspect of this critique has to do with its overreliance on Western-European ‘loci of enunciation’ (Zembylas, 2023a). In other words, the way these terms are movilized in disciplinary discourses, depends too heavily on perspectives and knowledge that come from Western-European social, cultural, and historical contexts, which may ultimately limit our understanding and marginalize other valuable viewpoints from different parts of the world. Florez and Crozet (2019) discuss how Indigenous epistemologies and ontologies are also part of the ways in which ‘interculturality’ can be conceptualized in the Latin American context, exploring its strong roots within Indigenous movements in countries like Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. As succinctly argued by Aman (2015), despite being direct translations, ‘interculturality is not interculturalidad’. Unlike the neutral or even harmonious undertones of ‘interculturality’ as a political project, ‘interculturalidad’ emerges as an act of resistance, calling for a recognition and restructuring of (colonial) power imbalances, seeking to create a space where Indigenous knowledges, rights, and worldviews are acknowledged, respected, and integrated into broader societal structures.
What kind of learning?
Having covered the key concepts and theoretical frameworks underpinning CILP, perhaps a natural question that emerges is what kind of learning experiences can support these pedagogies? In other words, how can these pedagogies be enacted in practice?
Learning experiences focusing on problematizing dominant ways of thinking/knowing, being and doing in the world are anchored in the possibility of liberatory change and transformation. The design of such learning experiences, in turn, is driven by learning theories that foreground transformation, most notably, the transformative learning developed by American sociologist Jack Mezirow (Mezirow, 1990). This way of conceptualizing the (language) learning process focuses on stimulating personal change “thinking, behavior, acceptance of the other, values, mindset, and/or emotion” (Leaver et al., 2021, p. 16). Change, in this context, stems from “from encountering disorienting dilemmas that shake learners’ belief systems and cause them to reflect, dissect, and analyze” (p. 17).
Creating instances of cognitive dissonance that challenge and complexify simplistic, naturalized, automatic-thinking fallacies such as binary thinking is key. According to Leaver et al. (2021) some examples of binary thinking include:
- all-or-nothing thinking;
- labelling;
- either/or thinking;
- right-or-wrong thinking;
- ‘us’ versus ‘them’ thinking (polarization); and
-
black-or-white thinking.
The process of designing transformative learning experiences should therefore be driven by tasks that may fuel learners’ curiosity, encourage active reflection, and exploration of self and others’ diverse identities, potential ex/inclusions and sense of belonging across contexts. Ultimately, these experiences should aim at stretching learners’ social, political and ecological imagination in general, as well as in relation to the languages and cultures in a given speech community.
These experiences should also be conceptualized as situated and dynamic, learning with each other and allowing for the co-construction of knowledge, rather than one-directional transmission of knowledge that reifies hierarchical power structures. Furthermore, these learning experiences should also center on and amplify the multiplicity of voices and lived experiences of historically oppressed, marginalized groups. Engagement with this content should be guided by critical questions that center the learners’ perspectives, allowing them to share their personal stories and opinions through dialogue and iterative cycles of problem-posing.
Indeed, another important characteristic of this conceptualization of learning has to do with its iterative, non-linear nature, and its active resistance to coming up with prescriptive solutions to complex problems that stem from learners’ own reality. This kind of learning experiences are also bound to take place outside the ‘physical/virtual’ classroom walls. Many studies have pointed at critical intercultural language pedagogies centered on ethnographic strategies applied to service learning (e.g., Pereira, 2021) as well as study abroad programs (see, for instance, Jackson, 2020).
After reading this section, do you think you have ever been exposed to critical intercultural pedagogies as a (language) learner? Why do you think so?
(How) do you see yourself being able to engage with these pedagogies in your own educational context(s)?
Where to from here?
This chapter has provided an introduction to the key theoretical frameworks informing what we understand today as ‘Critical Intercultural Language Pedagogies’. As noted earlier in this chapter, the use of the word ‘pedagogies’ in its plural form is key to understanding teaching and learning practices from a pluriversal (rather than universal) perspective (Ortega, 2025). Moreover, it is also important to conceive of these practices as ever evolving to reflect the dynamic, (self-)reflexivity that underpins them.
Due to its core focus on questioning the status quo, critical (intercultural) language pedagogies, as an overarching ‘constellation’ of frameworks, continue to be influenced and reimagined through other lenses, particularly those of social justice and decolonial theories (Bouamer & Bourdeau; Criser & Malakaj, 2020; Davidson et al., 2023; Hird, 2023; Hudley & Flores, 2022; Macedo, 2019; Meighan, 2022; Ortaçtepe Hart, 2023; Randolph Jr. & Johnson, 2017; Reagan & Osborn, 2020; Rosa & Flores, 2021). Indeed, these help cast kaleidoscopic lenses that allow us to hone in on specific types of intersectional inequalities and hegemonic oppression, from raciolinguistic and anti-racist ones (Austin, 2022; Hines-Gaither & Accilien, 2022; Magro, 2023; Rosa & Flores, 2020), to LGBTQ+ perspectives (Coda, 2017; Knisely, 2023; Knisely & Paiz, 2021; Paiz & Coda, 2021) as well as sustainable futures beyond material and anthropocentric concerns (see, for instance, de la Fuente, 2022; and Maijala et al., 2023). These lenses, in turn, can also collectively converge to continue expanding our vision beyond the horizon and “abyssal line” that has rendered certain languages, knowledges and ways of knowing and being as illegitimate and unintelligible (see, García et al., 2021).
Importantly, in addition to more nuanced, pluriversal articulation of what these pedagogical practices might realistically look like in practice, future teaching and research agendas in this area should also consider ‘critical language teacher education’ to explore how endorsement of these practices might impact the roles and identity/ies of pre- and in-service language educators (Gerlach & Lüke, 2023; Hawkins & Norton, 2009; Wassell & Glynn, 2022). As suggested by Kubota (2016, p. 214):
It is worth investigating how critical language teachers develop, alter, or rearrange their identities, especially when they are confronted by ideological conflicts or other ethical challenges in the classroom or elsewhere. This is because critical language teaching is characterized by a transformative purpose, and thus, not only is the transformation expected to happen in learners’ consciousness and social practices, but it is also likely to take place in teachers’ awareness and pedagogical practices.
To conclude, as I write this chapter, I would also like to turn this critical, self-reflexive gaze inwards. It is important to note, therefore, that this chapter is written in English, following expected academic English conventions, and mostly informed by sources written (mostly) in English, with (practical) examples in ‘named languages’, from scholars largely located in the Global North, in privileged English-dominant higher education contexts. I therefore acknowledge that this body of literature may not contemplate the long-standing challenges faced by Indigenous languages, sign languages and other less-widely taught languages. As such, I invite readers to consider relevant scholars in their own educational context(s), who write/speak/communicate differently, and in languages other than English or other dominant languages, who may already be involved in advancing enactment of critical intercultural language pedagogies taking into account their own realities, as well as the lived and embodied experiences of their learners.
Given the introductory nature of this chapter, and the impossibility of capturing the breadth of interconnected scholarly constellations in this area, I also invite readers to consider a more expansive approach to engagement with available works (written or otherwise), that may not use the word ‘critical’ in its title or as a keyword, but that are nonetheless underpinned by methodologies and perspectives which align with the genealogies of what is regarded here as “critical intercultural language pedagogies”. Several contributions in the areas of culturally responsive pedagogies, internationalization and study abroad, intercultural citizenship, social justice education, and human rights education exemplify this as they operationalize methodologies that resonate with critical and intercultural pedagogical approaches, without explicitly acknowledging them as such (see, for example, Porto & Zembylas, 2020; Wagner & Álvarez Valencia, 2022; Zembylas, 2023b).
Finally, manifestations of these works can increasingly be found beyond individual scholars’ research profiles, in the works (blogs, podcasts, workshop, webinars, etc.) of collectives, transnational, inter-institutional, interdisciplinary groups. See, for example the LatCrit Lab and its Critical Sociocultural Linguistic Literacy (CriSoLL) project, the Decolonising Languages Network, the Diversity, Decolonization, and the German (DDGC) and French Curriculum groups as well as the Belonging, Identity, Language, Diversity Research Group (BILD-LIDA), and the Critical Internationalization Studies Network.
Acknowledgements
I express my deepest gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of this chapter as well as their insightful comments, observations and constructive suggestions. I am also indebted to the editors for the opportunity to contribute to this timely volume and for their rigorous and supportive editorial work.
- “The term ‘world languages’ (WL) is used here to refer to modern/foreign (imperial) languages (which, in some cases, may also be considered community or heritage languages). I acknowledge that this term is not ideologically neutral nor unproblematic and that its use is not without shortcomings and ambiguities; however, its (re)definition falls outside the scope of this chapter. ” ↵
- “Examples of pedagogical practices that may be considered ‘critical’ can be found in both Western and non-Western contexts prior to the term ‘critical pedagogy’ being coined by critical intellectuals, educators and activists in Latin America and the United States (see, Apple et al., 2009). ” ↵
- “It is crucial to acknowledge that the conceptualization of term ‘critical’ and the ways in which it has evolved can bring into play both structuralist and poststructuralist perspectives, each offering distinct theorizations of power and its dynamics. In-depth discussion of these perspectives falls outside the scope this chapter, but readers are encouraged to explore these perspectives and their potentialities for pedagogical, societal and structural transformation (see, for example, Agger, 1991; Cho, 2012 and Dews, 2020).” ↵
The adjective ‘intercultural’ and its nominalization, ‘interculturality’, combine the prefix inter-, meaning in-between, with the word ‘culture’ and the suffix -ality, referring to never-ending processes. In general terms, these words are used to capture the notion that “meeting a person, a thing, an idea, a product from another part of the world, always involves at least two persons who are made to think beyond themselves” (Dervin, 2023, p. 2).
These terms have been used to define a pedagogical orientation or predisposition in world languages education. However, they appear to be chameleonically defined in many ways in different (disciplinary and geopolitical) contexts and, as such, critical, reflexive engagement with their meaning and enactment continues to emerge (see, for instance, Dervin, 2022; Dervin & R'boul, 2022; Dervin & Tan, 2022; R'boul & Dervin, 2023).
Refers to a type of learning that leads to individual and societal change. Jack Mezirow (2008) defines transformative learning, as a process whereby “we transform problematic frames of reference (mindsets, habits of mind, meaning perspectives) – sets of assumption and expectation – to make them more inclusive, discriminating, open, reflective and emotionally able to change.”
In simple terms, this word is used to refer to power dynamics through which a dominant group exerts power and control over a subordinate, oppressed group. Dominant groups may be nations, dominant classes, ideologies, or ways of thinking. Dominance and control are achieved, for instance, by projecting and normalizing certain ways of seeing and understanding the world while invisibilizing or even erasing others. This word is associated with the Italian Marxist theorist, Antonio Gramsci (1891–1936), who developed the concept in the context of the anti-capitalist and anti-fascist struggles of the first half of the last century.
This is another concept developed by Freire to describe and critique the traditional education system in which “knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing”. In this model, the power dynamic between teachers and learners is hierarchical, the teacher talks and the learners listen obediently, the learners are empty ‘containers’ or ‘receptacles’ to be filled by the teachers.
This is an educational method which stands as an alternative to the banking concept of education. Through this learner-centered method, learners are actively encouraged to think of problems that stem from their own reality and to formulate their own questions to explore them, rather than passively receiving this information from their teacher. As such, learners become co-creators of knowledge in dialogic collaboration with the teacher. This method aims to develop learners’ creativity, perspective-taking, and the ability to understand the complexity of finding alternative solutions to certain problems, and, in so doing, supporting their liberation.
“In problem-posing education, people develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves; they come to see the world not as a static reality, but as a reality in process, in transformation.” (Freire, 1970, p. 64)
While Freire initially resisted having this concept translated into English in his works (Freire, 1985), he eventually accepted the word conscientization be used as the rough translation from Brazilian Portuguese into English. Other terms that have also been used to capture its meaning: critical consciousness/awareness and consciousness raising. Conscientização refers to the complex process of achieving an in-depth understanding of the world and its contradictions. This process is driven by de-habituation, de-naturalization, and problematization of habits and knowledge(s) that may have not been previously questioned, nor even thought about, because they were considered to the be the status quo, the way certain things are. Importantly, conscientização also entails taking action against the oppressive elements in one’s life that are illuminated by this understanding.
The adjective ‘intercultural’ and its nominalization, ‘interculturality’, combine the prefix inter-, meaning in-between, with the word ‘culture’ and the suffix -ality, referring to never-ending processes. In general terms, these words are used to capture the notion that “meeting a person, a thing, an idea, a product from another part of the world, always involves at least two persons who are made to think beyond themselves” (Dervin, 2023, p. 2).
These terms have been used to define a pedagogical orientation or predisposition in world languages education. However, they appear to be chameleonically defined in many ways in different (disciplinary and geopolitical) contexts and, as such, critical, reflexive engagement with their meaning and enactment continues to emerge (see, for instance, Dervin, 2022; Dervin & R'boul, 2022; Dervin & Tan, 2022; R'boul & Dervin, 2023).
Reflexivity and self-reflexivity (one’s own reflexive practice) are constructs that refer to dynamic, ever-evolving processes and practices, as well as ways of being in relation to others through which we center and problematize “‘who’ is the one speaking/representing, from where (which context, social, and historical background), and with what kind of capacity/ies, intentions, or overall aims” (Byrd Clark, 2020, p. 87). While these constructs are not directly related to Critical Pedagogy, Byrd Clark (2020) has discussed in detail the reciprocal relationship and overlaps with ‘criticality’ as conceptualized in the fields of Applied Linguistics, language and intercultural communication education.