Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Applied Linguistics: A Pragmatic Discipline, A Generic Discipline?
Applied Linguistics: A Pragmatic Discipline, A Generic Discipline?
doi:10.1093/applin/ami032
DISCUSSION ARTICLE
PREAMBLE
It is some 25 years since the first issue of Applied Linguistics, and so it is
perhaps timely that this issue brings together a wide-ranging set of papers,
each from a quite distinct area of applied linguistics. I am grateful for the
opportunity to respond to them, which I do by attempting to reflect on
what the papers say to us about the nature and internal cohesion of applied
linguistics today.
As has often been pointed out (e.g. Davies 1999) up to the mid-1980s
applied linguistics was most closely associated with its educational branch,
and particularly with the researched pedagogy of language teaching. Initially
more focused on developing principles and practices on the basis of informed
linguistic description, in the 1970s it gradually came to include the study of
second language acquisition (SLA) as a sub-activity designed to inform
the development of a researched pedagogy. Yet by the early 1980s SLA fairly
quickly declared itself a distinct area from language pedagogy research,
with the principal aim of researching all aspects of second language
acquisition as an academic discipline in its own right. For many, however,
SLA is still seen as synonymous with an approach to language teaching, and
for some both are still thought of as the main matter of applied linguistics.
Nonetheless all three have in fact become distinct: SLA dealing with the
acquisition of second and subsequent languages outside as well as inside
classrooms, and with improving understanding of how learning proceeds,
rather than with how pedagogies can work; the researched study of language
pedagogy including first as well as second or other languages, and not
exclusively concerned with studies of language learning; while the borders of
applied linguistics have expanded well beyond those of language teaching
or learning, to include for instance forensic linguistics, speech, and language
therapy, sign languages, the study of the language of public debates, and
work with health professionals on their interactions with clients. This
expansion is reflected in the themes of applied linguistic conferences, in
the titles of books submitted for applied linguistic book prizes, and in the
MARTIN BYGATE
569
570
DISCUSSION
MARTIN BYGATE
571
572
DISCUSSION
MARTIN BYGATE
573
574
DISCUSSION
MARTIN BYGATE
575
576
DISCUSSION
MARTIN BYGATE
577
was set up from the outset, and CLT subsequently emerged, specifically to
serve the need to develop the teaching and learning of language for commercial
purposes, Kramsch is stating that, from the beginning of the discipline,
institutions and publications such as ELT Journal, and the Edinburgh Course in
Applied Linguistics (Allen et al. 197377) concentrated heavily on commercial
needs and interests. The argument implies that the same is true of all
other significant publications which were explicitly situated within a CLT
framework, such as the work of Allwright (e.g. 1984), Anderson and Lynch
(1988), Breen (1989), Brumfit (e.g. 1979, 1984), Brumfit and Johnson (1979),
Breen and Candlin (1980), George (1972), Larsen-Freeman (1980), Legutke
and Thomas (1991), Lynch (1996), Prabhu (1987), Skehan (1998), Stevick
(1976), Widdowson (1978, 1983), and the pedagogic and teacher education
materials published by theoretical practitioners such as Abbs and Sexton (1978),
Frank and Rinvolucri (1991), Lynch and Anderson (1992), McEldowney
(1982), Ur (1981, 1988), White (1978/1979), Wright (1994), or the work of
programme evaluators, such as those reported in Alderson and Beretta
(1992). I list these specifically because none of these writers (among others) to
my knowledge defined their work in the way Kramsch does in her paper.
Her paper also makes no mention of the fact that this work drew widely on
the writings of linguists and educationists such as Dewey (e.g. 1910),
Bruner (1960, 1966, 1983), Halliday (1974, 1985), Hymes (1971), and Wells
(1981, 1985) or indeed that, in fact, it drew hardly at all on linguists such
as Chomsky. From Kramschs perspective, whatever its statements and
intentions, CLT in theory and practice was directed to meeting the commercial
needs and interests of the wider context. Interpreting publications such as
those cited above in this way, her account therefore constitutes a radical
reinterpretation of a truly substantial body of theoretical and practical work
generated over more than 20 years, virtually all of which was explicitly
premised on the need for a holistic, interactive and learner-oriented conception
of language, language use, and language learning, and hardly any of which
(and none of the above output) was explicitly oriented towards the learning
of language for commercial purposes.
Indeed, Kramschs account is such a huge reassessment of this period in
educational applied linguistics that it amounts to a claim that the conceptual
and practical developments articulated and promoted by applied linguists
were completely different fromand in the majority of cases in contradiction
tothe actual theoretical reasoning and practical contributions of the period.
Claims made by numerous of the above applied linguists to be developing
a socio-cognitively-inspired, learner-driven, meaning-oriented pedagogy
aimed at facilitating learners perceptions of, memory for, and ability to
use language within pedagogically effective discoursethese claims turn out
according to Kramschs interpretation instead to have worked to enable the
teaching of language for commercial purposes.
If this is indeed Kramschs argument, then the implications for the entire
field are intimidating: applied linguistic research is irreparably contaminated
578
DISCUSSION
MARTIN BYGATE
579
classroom teaching and learning developed through noninterventionist research, will lead in the long run to the most
principled insights which can best inform teachers craft theories,
and thusindirectlytheir practices? Or should we aim to build
up research skills and traditions which equip us to intervene much
more directly in the teaching process, experimenting actively
with specific techniques and using learning outcomes rather than
processes as our main measure of effectiveness, so as to generate
the kind of evidence base seen as most useful by current policy
makers? (Mitchell 2000: 299300)
There are doubtless ways in which the framing of the second option might
be usefully reworked (for instance maintaining a focus on process, and
retaining a concern to explore participants perceptions and conceptualizations). And I would argue particularly for the more widespread use of
cyclical research designs, a point implied consistently throughout the
evaluation literature (see for instance Alderson and Beretta 1992). Yet with
these provisos, as Mitchell suggests, it seems to me that we need to go well
beyond debate, and grapple much more substantially with the full range of
assumptions and procedures which are used by our interlocutors, whether
they are our potential paymasters, or the members of the public we
might be aiming to serve. And this speaks beyond the specific area of
educational applied linguistics to the field at large, and indicates directions
already sketched out for the development of a methodologically pragmatic
discipline.
CONCLUSION
To return, then, to the generic and pragmatic nature of the discipline.
It seems to me that the papers suggest the need for work in three main areas:
on the specific principles and methods we use to engage with real-world
challenges; on our shared and strengthening disciplinary culture; and on the
concepts, constructs, and practices needed to study those fundamental issues
with which we need to engage across the breadth of our field. There seems,
therefore, to be some commonality here across the sub-areas in terms of
the wide range of problems we aim to engage with across private, public,
and professional contexts: those related to language use across different
contexts and domains; those associated with language variation, both within
and between speakers; those associated with interaction between different
types and groups of language users; those related to the impacts of language
experiences and learning over time; and those related to professional and lay
involvement. These are basic issues which might form part of a core applied
linguistics, and constitute what is a long-term disciplinary enterprise.
The functioning of language in the context of real-world problems, and what
to do about it, are issues which are not about to go away and which no other
discipline is available to address.
580
DISCUSSION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am grateful to two reviewers for their helpful and insightful comments on a previous draft of
this paper.
REFERENCES
Abbs, B. and M. Sexton. 1978. Challenges.
A Multi-media Project for Learners of English.
London: Longman.
Alderson, J. C. and A. Beretta (eds). 1992.
Evaluating Second Language Education. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Allen, J. P. B., A. Davies, and S. Pit Corder (eds).
1973, 1974, 1975, 1977. Edinburgh Course
in Applied Linguistics, Vols 14. London: Oxford
University Press.
Allwright, R. L. 1984. Interaction in the
language classroom, Applied Linguistics 5/2:
15671.
Anderson, A. and T. Lynch. 1988. Listening.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Breen, M. 1989. The evaluation cycle for language
learning tasks in R. K. Johnson (ed.): The Second
Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Breen, M. and C. N. Candlin. 1980. The
essentials of a communicative curriculum
in language teaching, Applied Linguistics 1:
89112.
Brumfit, C. J. 1979. Practice and Principle in
English Language Teaching. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
MARTIN BYGATE
581