Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

(TESOL)

Linguistics, Psychology, and Pedagogy: Trinity or Unity?

Author(s): Ronald Wardhaugh
Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Jun., 1968), pp. 80-87
Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3586082
Accessed: 22-02-2020 09:04 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3586082?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with

JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly

This content downloaded from 177.236.61.69 on Sat, 22 Feb 2020 09:04:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Linguistics, Psychology, and Pedagogy:
Trinity or Unity?*
Ronald Wardhaugh

Most of us would agree that a vari- cerning the proper goals of linguistic
ety of different educational goals endeavor, when learning psychology
exists within what we call TESOL is apparently moving away from stud-
(teaching English to speakers of iesother
of rats in mazes and of pigeons in
languages), but we would probably boxes to computer simulation of be-
insist that we should share a common havior and to studies of electrical,
chemical, and neurophysiological func-
pedagogy in which the linguistic, psy-
chological, and educational variablestioning, and when pedagogy is con-
find a unity. cerned more and more with content,
The problem I have chosen in- with strategies of learning, and with
volves an examination of these three the structuring of knowledge.
different variables to discover what It should be pointed out, however,
that even in this apparent disunity in
the relationship among them has been
in the past, is now, and could be-the disciplines there is a very remark-
come in the future. What should a able kind of unity. Each of the dis-
teacher engaged in TESOL know of ciplines is reverting to types of in-
quiry which certain former practi-
linguistics, of psychology, and of peda-
gogy? How much does each of these tioners of the discipline pursued. In
three disciplines contribute to the current linguistics Chomsky has looked
others? Are they perhaps quite sepa- so far into the past for historical ante-
rate with nothing at all to contributecedents to his interests in linguistic
to each other? May not any unity we theory and language acquisition that
he has even been called a "neomedieval
find be in reality a forced one, a mar-
riage of convenience (a trois, of philosopher" by one of his critics1. In
course), or a rationalization of existing current psychology there is a return
practice rather than a theoretically to some of the concerns of early psy-
valid unity? Do we, to refer to my chologists, to such concerns as rea-
title, have a trinity or a unity? The soning and the genesis of ideation. No
examination I propose seems particu- longer is the inside of the "black box"
larly necessary at this point in time forbidden territory. In current educa-
when the three disciplines themselves tional thought there has been a no-
are in a state of change, when lin- ticeable return to a kind of neo-prag-
guistics is filled with controversy con- matism, to a "John Dewey with a
hard nose" approach, to quote a recent
* This paper was presented at the TESOL issue of Saturday Review2. However,
Convention, March 1968. this kind of unity, or disunity if you
Mr. Wardhaugh, Associate Professor of wish to call it such, is not the kind I
Linguistics and Director of the English
Language Institute at the University of 1Charles F. Hockett, review of Biological
Michigan, is the editor of Language Learn- Foundations of Language by Eric H. Len-
ing. He has published recently in College neberg, Scientific American, 217:5 (Novem-
English, Reading Teacher, and Canadian ber, 1967), 14.
Journal of Linguistics. 2December 16, 1967.
80

This content downloaded from 177.236.61.69 on Sat, 22 Feb 2020 09:04:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TRINITY OR UNITY? 81

want to concentrate my attention rooms at least, a confusion of speech

upon. Rather I propose to show that and writing, a belief in the appropri-
in each historical period an attempt is ateness of a universal Latinate model
made, conscious or otherwise, to unite for all languages, and no real search
the prevailing knowledge of language, for theories which might account for
the prevailing understanding of lan-the complexities of a natural language.
guage learning, and the prevailing con-In psychology the emphasis was on
cept of educational goals into a patternsuch concepts as the association of
of language teaching. Such a pattern ideas, mental discipline, over-learning,
may actually be said to represent thememory, and forgetting. It is not sur-
best thought of its time, so that it prising then that when the educated
demonstrates the "conventional wis- elite of the period prized the classics
dom" of its period. It would, of course,and placed great value on encyclopedic
be quite untrue to say that such a formal knowledge, the prevailing peda-
pattern is universally subscribed to ingogy in second-language teaching
its period, for apparently there has should have been one which empha-
never been a time when one pattern sized grammar-translation, learning
of second-language teaching existed about a language rather than learning
to the exclusion of all others. a language, and reading and writing
At the risk of oversimplificationrather
I than listening and speaking.
am going to characterize this pattern Obviously, there were strong under-
for each of three historical periods,currents of dissent from such empha-
periods which, for convenience only, ses, but they were no more than that.
I shall call the prelinguistic period, If one wishes to choose representative
the linguistic period, and the contem- books for the prelinguistic period, he
porary period. I also very deliberately need go no further than the phrase
use the word characterize, for I be- books in which there are the foreign
lieve that at any one time we can language equivalents of such an ex-
characterize our own discipline bothpression as "The postillion has been
as it exists at that time and as it struck by lightning" or the famous
seems to have existed at other times. Coleman Report' with its claims about
Such characterizations may be myths, the desirability of teaching students to
but they are no less important for read foreign languages.
that because they provide us with a Let me pause to make one point
foundation, or a rationale if you prefer quite clear. I am not saying that sec-
that term, on which to base our teach- ond languages were not taught success-
ing. Let us look then at characteriza- fully in this period. Undoubtedly they
tions of these various periods, taking often were. The goals set out for lan-
the prelinguistic period and its pattern guage teaching were probably achieved
of language teaching first. quite regularly by those teachers who
In the modern part of the prelin- believed in what they were doing.
guistic period, that is, in the years Algernon Coleman, The Teaching of
immediately before, and to some extent Modern Foreign Languages in the United
during, the beginnings of modern lin- States (New York: American and Canadi-
an Committees on Modern Languages,
guistic science, there was, in the school 1929).

This content downloaded from 177.236.61.69 on Sat, 22 Feb 2020 09:04:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
82 TESOL QUARTERLY

ther postulation
These goals certainly differed from the or discovery, its sig-
goals we have today, but that nificant is quiteunits, significant contrasts,
another matter. We must also pre- and significant patterns. This charac-
sume that the teachers did find a terization needs no further amplifica-
unity among linguistics, psychology, tion; it is doubtless very familiar to us
and pedagogy and that they could all.
justify what they were doing either We undoubtedly have a similar fa-
in terms of stating a set of principlesmiliarity with the prevailing psychol-
on which their practices were based, ogy. This too became more "scientific"
hence a priori, or in terms of a ra- and "experimental." We have heard
tionalization to justify practice, henceabout the laws of learning (a la Thorn-
a posteriori. dike) and about such notions as trans-
fer and interference. We are aware of
More relevant to us as teacher
trainers than the prelinguisticboth Watsonian behaviorism and
period
is the linguistic period, for itSkinnerian
was in reinforcement, and we
this period that most of us were know better than to ignore the pat-
trained ourselves, and it is just such terns discussed by the Gestaltists. In
training that is behind us in our work psychology the period was one in which
today. However, as I intend to empha- psychologists emphasized habit for-
size, the students we are training to- mation, induction, and transfer, both
day are almost certainly not going to positive and negative, and they too,
be working in what I am referring to like linguists, ruled the inside of the
as the linguistic period. They are head almost entirely out of bounds as
going to be working in a period which a legitimate area of concern.
will have to be characterized in quite When the pressures of war and in-
a different way from the characteriza- ternational involvement made it neces-
tion that I am now going to present sary to teach second languages to large
for the linguistic period. numbers of students in situations
which enabled their teachers to em-
In the linguistic period of second-
language teaching the study of lan-ploy subtle forms of coercion, a new
guage became more "objective" be- unity was found, and it is not sur-
cause the prevailing scientific view- prising that this unity reflected the
point in language study valued dis- kind of linguistic, psychological, and
passionate observation of data. The pedagogical interests just mentioned.
period also witnessed important at- Just as it is possible to choose a phrase
tempts to wrestle with the implications book and the Coleman Report as rep-
of various distinctions: for example, resentative works of the prelinguistic
the speech-writing distinction and the period, it is possible to choose a similar
Saussurean langue-parole distinction. representative work for the linguistic
However, in connection with the latter period. Lado's book Language Teach-
it must be emphasized that there was ing4 is just such a work, for it is a
greater concentration on parole than deliberate attempt to formalize in
on langue. There was also a wide-
spread belief that, given any language, 4Robert Lado, Language Teaching, A
Scientific Approach (New York: McGraw-
a linguist could describe, through ei-
Hill, 1964).

This content downloaded from 177.236.61.69 on Sat, 22 Feb 2020 09:04:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TRINITY OR UNITY? 83

extremely simple terms the prevailingof language teachers, that generation

which is actually in our classrooms to-
views of linguistics and of psychology,
day seeking answers from us?
and to integrate these into a statement
about pedagogy. However, it could First well
of all, linguistics as a discipline
be argued that in actual fact Lado's has undergone a tremendous change in
statement about language teaching is the last decade, a change of the kind
a rationalization or justification of a that Kuhn in his book The Structure
set of practices that had grown up un- of Scientific Revolutions5 has called
systematically and accidentally rather a revolution. The goals of the dis-
than a rigorous statement of axioms cipline as pursued by Chomsky, Fill-
and derivative practices. The book is more, and others are vastly different
actually a rather simple statement from those of Bloomfield, Trager, and
which characterizes the TESOL prac- Hockett, and the problems that in-
tices of the 1950's and tries to give terest them are also different. In no
them a strong theoretical base. As a way do I mean this statement to be
characterization it offered teachers a a criticism of the interests of struc-
rationalization for what they weretural
do- linguists, for linguistics is surely
a big
ing and a justification, too, for the use enough discipline to include
of such technological innovations widely
as diverging interests! However,
it is true to say that the major thrust
language laboratories and even teach-
in go
ing machines. It is not necessary to contemporary linguistics is not to-
into the details of the pedagogy pre- an exploration of the formal
wards
characteristics of grammatical models
sented in Language Teaching, for most
of us are undoubtedly familiar withand towards an understanding of the
the
book. I think that we need only subtle
say interplay of syntax and seman-
that the book offers an account of tics. There are also far different
language teaching which possesses all made today than a decade ag
claims
the advantages of a characterization, about what it means to know a lan-
guage and to acquire a language even
for it is economical, clear, and simple;
however, at the same time it has all though this particular problem is
the disadvantages since it is really a usually discussed only in relation to
statement of belief and as such perhapsfirst-language acquisition, with sec-
unassailable and invulnerable. ond-language acquisition hardly even
mentioned.
When we turn from the linguistic
period to the contemporary scene In in psychology, too, there have been
linguistics, psychology, and TESOL great
in changes. Just as linguists have
order to discover what each of these disputed the proper goals of linguis-
disciplines is like today, we should tics, so have psychologists disputed
likewise look for evidence of disunity the proper goals of psychology. One
or unity. Are we still subscribers result
to of such dispute has been rather
the point of view formalized by Lado? less observation of lower animals and
If we are not, what characterization rather more emphasis on understand-
do we have to substitute for Lado's?
What are we saying or what do we 'Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University
intend to say to the next generation of Chicago Press, 1962).

This content downloaded from 177.236.61.69 on Sat, 22 Feb 2020 09:04:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
84 TESOL QUARTERLY

ing the processes of perception,a cogni-

method work and why does it work
tion, and learning: that is, onvery
under-
well at one time but not well at
standing the higher mental processes. all at another time?" A second com-
Psychologists, too, are attempting to from Robert Politzer at
ment comes
model the inside of the head and to the conclusion of a report on an ex-
simulate human capabilities in order periment in which various combina-
to gain a better understanding of cog- tions of drill and explanation were
nitive structures, categorizing abilities
compared:
and information transmission, and of In conclusion we point out that the
the various strategies and plans thatindependent variable under investiga-
an organism has available to it or cantion-place of or absence of explana-
acquire. Even the postulation of in- tion-does perhaps not have the
importance attributed to it in some
nate structures and properties is found
of the current pedagogical discussion.
to be quite acceptable. In education, That class differences (even with class-
too, there is a return to the organiza-es taught by the same teacher!) turned
tion of knowledge, to the self disciplineout to be more significant than treat-
of learning, and to the range of in- ment differences is an indication that
dividual variation in interest and in the actual practical teaching situa-
tion the Foreign language teacher
ability. should indeed pay a great deal of atten-
One result of all this activity is tion to such variables as the time of
that the linguistic method of language meeting of the class, the degree of ea-
gerness or tiredness of the student at
teaching is under severe attack from
various sides. For illustration of this certain times of the day, etc. As many
Foreign language teachers have no
point I will quote a few criticisms doubt suspected for some time, such
and offer a comment or two on each. variables may, in the long run, make
First, a criticism by Paul Roberts. at least as much of a difference as
Speaking of the wartime language some of the refinements of teaching
methodology.7
schools, Roberts says:
Politzer's comment brings us a little
If you put a bright young soldier closer to a full awareness of the com-
into a room with a native speaker of
plexity of the problem of understand-
Japanese and keep them there eight
hours a day for eighteen months, the ing exactly what variables are impor-
soldier will learn quite a lot of Japa- tant in language learning. Perhaps
nese, even if his text is just a Japanese we should be a little more honest than
translation of Cicero and his instruc-
we are and admit that we do not
tor is a nitwit. Unless, of course,
really know how people learn. At be
the soldier simply goes mad, which also
happened now and then.6 we can make only more or less sati
factory guesses, and these guesses a
Obviously there is considerable truth
count for only parts of the languag
in Roberts' statements. The linguistic
learning process.
method worked in many cases but
other methods worked, too. The really 7Robert L. Politzer, "An Investigation
interesting questions are, "Why does of the Order of Presentation of Foreign
Language Grammar Drills in Relation to
Their Explanation." (United States De-
6Paul Roberts, Foreword to A Linguis- partment of Health, Education and Wel-
tics Reader, ed. Graham Wilson (New fare, Office of Education, Bureau of Re-
York: Harper & Row, 1967), p. xxvii. search, Project 5-1096, September, 1967.)

This content downloaded from 177.236.61.69 on Sat, 22 Feb 2020 09:04:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TRINITY OR UNITY? 85

such claims, and I suggest we heed

The third statement is a claim about
it:
language learning and language teach-
ing by William Bull:
I am, frankly, rather skeptical about
Learning to talk like a Spaniard means the significance, for teaching of lan-
first to think like a Spaniard. This guages, of such insights and under-
book is dedicated to the proposition standing as have been attained in
that it is easier to learn to think like linguistics and psychology . . . [and]
a Spaniard if the teacher can explain ... suggestions from the 'fundamental
how a Spaniard thinks.8 disciplines' must be viewed with cau-
tion and skepticism.'?
The claim is a very strong one indeed,
that we should teach Spanish by We must heed it if we are to resist
teaching the thought processes of the stampede in what I have called
Spaniards. The claim suggests that the contemporary period of language
we know a lot about these processes. teaching towards the adoption of a
I would suggest that we know next new pedagogy in which the new lin-
to nothing about these processes and guistics, the new psychology, and the
the claim is spurious. The book from new demands made of our educational
which it comes also seems to suggest system will find themselves welded
that somehow a generative-transfor- into a new unity which will have as
mational grammar of Spanish offers little theoretical justification as any
some kind of characterization of the past unity.
thought processes of Spanish speakers. Let me substantiate this last state-
Again this claim must be disputed. ment since it obviously requires a
Still another instance of a similar defense. If we look back to what I
kind of claim comes from a paper pre-
have called the prelinguistic period
sented by Karl Diller at the Tenth we can now see that there was reall
International Congress of Linguists inlittle or no reason for the particula
Bucharest in 1967: unification of linguistic, psychologica
In sum . . . generative grammari- and pedagogical understandings that
ans would agree that a language is occurred. We can make the same
learned through an active cognitive statement for the linguistic perio
process rather than through an ex- During this period there were in e
ternally imposed process of condition-
tence other views of linguistics, p
ing and drill. Further, they would
agree that grammatical rules are psy- chology, and education than those p
chologically real and that people mustticular ones which found their wa
use these rules-consciously or not- into the linguistic method. Howev
in speaking or understanding a lan- the kind of unity that the metho
guage.'
provided did give its practitioners
Chomsky himself has given approach, us the or a theoretical basis, or
following very clear warning rationale, about within which to work. A

8William E. Bull, Spanish for Teachers:

Applied Linguistics (New York: Ronald 10Noam Chomsky, "Linguistic Theory,"
Press, 1965), p 18. Northeast Conference on the Teaching of
9Karl Diller, "Generative Grammar and Foreign Languages, Reports of the Working
Foreign Language Teaching." Committees, p. 43.

This content downloaded from 177.236.61.69 on Sat, 22 Feb 2020 09:04:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
86 TESOL QUARTERLY

Edward Anthony has pointedterization

out,11 of the basic disciplines and
an approach is axiomatic so that it is what we are doing in class-
to justify
rooms. We need it so that we can
by definition beyond proof or disproof.
An approach is a matter of belief, feel that
and our practice is theoretica
the beliefs on which the linguistic justified, so that we can consider o
method was based came from many selves to be up to date, and so that
sources. It may even be said that on we can be properly committed to our
occasion an approach is based not so jobs. At the moment many of our
much on axioms or beliefs as that younger teachers feel rather insecure.
axioms and beliefs are developed They
in an
find the linguistic method quite
apparent attempt to justify existing unacceptable since it employs the
methods. Perhaps at some time we wrong rhetoric. They cannot believe
would do well to examine the linguis-in it; consequently, the method will
tic method in detail to see if it is not not work for them. But they have
just an instance of this latter process nothing to replace it with, for there is
of justification. Today, though, the no new rhetoric available as yet. For
system of beliefs associated with the them there is no self-fulfilling proph-
linguistic method is held by a de- ecy, the prophecy which says that to
clining number of the key people in make something work you must be-
second-language teacher training. In lieve in it; believe in something and
such training we are engaged in for- it will work for you.
malizing a new approach which will Let me conclude by saying that it
be based on beliefs that we find to beis just such systems of belief and
acceptable today. But while we seekcommitment which are above all im-
to formulate a set of axioms, actual portant in our task of training teachers
teaching innovations are occurring in TESOL. It is up to all of us to
the classrooms. Gradually there will help the next generation of TESOL
be an inevitable merging of theoryteachers find an approach to their
and practice, and ipso facto a new teaching which will serve them as well
unity will emerge. This will happen, as the linguistic method has served us
but it has not yet happened. and probably still serves us. I myself
There is though, let me add, a kind do not agree entirely with Alfred
of puzzle in all of this. We do not Hayes when he writes:
need to have this new unity because [Teachers] must somehow cease to
it is intrinsically better than either of regard 'methods' as matters of 'belief,'
the previous unities I have character- while learning to understand and to
ized. Indeed, I do not know how we question the assumptions underlying
could test for better or worse in this suggested approaches."2
sense. We need a new unity for an Certainly we must train teachers to
entirely different reason. We need it question, but they need to believe in
in order to reflect our current charac- what they are doing, too. Blind un-

11 Edward M. Anthony, "Approach, Meth- 2 Alfred S. Hayes, Foreword to Trends

od, and Technique," English Language in Language Teaching, ed Albert Valdman
Teaching, 17 (January, 1963), 63-67. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), p. vi.

This content downloaded from 177.236.61.69 on Sat, 22 Feb 2020 09:04:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TRINITY OR UNITY? 87

questioning belief is what we set of beliefs which will allow them to

must
avoid, but belief in a unifiedbeapproachas successful as we have been, and
is what teachers must have in order which at the same time gives them
to succeed in their teaching. One ofthe opportunity to grow and change as
the theoretical advances in linguistics,
the greatest challenges we have before
psychology,
us as trainers of the next generation of and pedagogy continue.
teachers in TESOL and other disci- It is an exciting challenge and one
plines is to help them to articulatewhich
a demands our fullest attention.

This content downloaded from 177.236.61.69 on Sat, 22 Feb 2020 09:04:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms