Applied Linguistics

article taken from the Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 2nd

The Birth of AL

Perhaps no other field in the humanities or the social sciences has experienced so much debate in coming to terms with its self-image as has applied linguistics (AL). The term AL was created in the United States and in Britain more or less at once. In the latter half of the 1950s. In 1956, the University of Edinburgh founded the School of Applied Linguistics. Under the direction of J.C. Catford, and in 1957 the Center for AL was founded in Washington, DC, directed by Charles Ferguson. While the two organizations differed in scope, both shared the general aim of promoting and increased the teaching of the English language. From the start AL was a field not only related to the teaching and learning of a specific language – English.

applied linguistics

The field has not only grown to include the teaching and learning of languages other than English, but it has also broadened its vision to include more than language teaching and learning. Rampton (1995b: 234), for instance, contends that the British School of applied linguistics is shifting away from traditional concerns with pedagogy, linguistics and psychology, and towards a more general interest in social phenomena.

In fact, there appears to be a general consensus among those who consider themselves to be applied linguists that, in addition to its traditional base, the field encompasses such areas as language policy and language planning, lexicography and lexicology, speech therapy, multilingual and language contact studies, language assessment, second language acquisition, literacy, forensic linguistics, and some would even include stylistics, genre studies, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, language socialization, conversation analysis and translation and interpreting.

Journals

The field counts a number of internationally recognized journals among its publishing organs, including:

These journals, among others, support editorial policies that have paralleled the expansion of the field and regularly publish articles in many of the areas listed above. Other journals, such as:

Have maintained their focus on empirical and, to a lesser extent, theoretical studies, relating to the acquisition and teaching of languages beyond the first. At least two journals focus primarily on the teaching and learning of English:

Others are concerned with specific domains, such as:

Another sign of the robustness of the field is the increasing number of monograph and book-length volumes published by important academic and commercial presses, including:

The raking of the journals can be check in:

There has also been remarkable growth in the number of universities around the world offering graduate degrees in AL. The field continues not to have the precise nature of what is AL as an academic discipline, and how it relates to other domains of linguistics. What, for example, are the fundamental statements around which the field coheres? What is precisely applied in AL? Is there a theoretical component to applied linguistics or is it only a practical discipline?

The basis of AL

The early Edinburgh School considered applied linguists to be consumers rather than producers of linguistic theory. The task of AL activity was to interpret the findings of linguistic research on how languages are learned and used. Thus, to inform language teaching (Corder 1973: 10). In arguing for an expanded understanding of the domain of AL to include not just language teaching but also stylistics, language disabilities and translation, Crystal (1980) proposed that, not only could the findings of linguistic research be made relevant to these areas, but so could its theories and research methods.

applied linguistics

AL and LA

As AL expanded its interests beyond the domain of language teaching, it became apparent that disciplines other than linguistics would need to be drawn on in order to develop in-depth understandings and solutions to real-world language problems. Eventually, Widdowson, a disciple of the Edinburgh School, proposed an important distinction between applied linguistics and linguistics applied.

The latter concept is closer to the original understanding of the term ‘applied linguistics’; that is, it assumes that language-based real-world problems can be solved exclusively through the application of linguistic theory, methods and findings (Widdowson 1980). The former term recognizes that, while linguistics offers important insights and solutions to language problems, and continues to form the core of applied linguistics, research from other disciplines, such as psychology, anthropology, sociology (and perhaps even philosophy and literary research), can also profitably be brought to bear on these problems.

In fact, according to Widdowson (2000a, 2000b), there is good reason to reject the understanding of AL as linguistics applied, since most language-based problems cannot reasonably be solved through the application of linguistic principles alone. According to Widdowson, the applied linguist serves as a mediator between linguistics and language teaching in order to convert the abstract into knowledge that is useful for pedagogical practices (Widdowson 200a: 28). This perspective, then, seems to mirror the earlier ‘applied linguists as consumer’ interpretation proposed by Corder, however, Widdowson recognizes the necessity for AL to draw on disciplines outside of linguistics in order to develop its insights and recommendations.

The Difference between AL and LA

One reason for drawing a distinction between applied linguistics and linguistics applied is the worry that, as ‘linguistics itself expands the domain of its own research interests beyond theorizing about autonomous and abstract grammatical systems to recognition of the relevance of context for language use and language learning, the narrow interpretation of AL as linguistics applied could well make redundant the work of applied linguists (Widdowson 200a).

Furthermore, the need for ALto draw on disciplines outside of linguistics means that, unlike linguistics proper, it is a genuinely interdisciplinary field. A more appropriate way, according to Spolsky (1980: 73) is to mark the distinction between AL and linguistics proper. To recognize that the former is a ‘relevant linguistics’, while the latter believes there is merit in the autonomous study of language as an object in itself divorced from any real-world use.

The Activities of Applied Linguistics

Another matter of some controversy concerns the brand of linguistics that should inform the activities of AL. Widdowson (2000a: 29-30), for example, argues that generative theory is relevant to language teaching. But it is not the task of theoretician to demonstrate its relevance. The applied linguist is the mediator between theory and practice. He or she is charged with the responsibility of realizing this task.

Widdowson contends, for example, that Chomsky’s rejection of language learning as habit formation, and recognition that acquisition is a ‘cognitive and creative process’. Which learners infer possible grammars on the basis of input and biologically determined constraints, has had a major impact on language teaching practice. While learners most certainly draw inferences based on what they hear and see. Even after a good deal of research is not clear that their inferences are constrained in the ways predicted by generative theory.

What is more, Chomsky’s understanding of ‘creativity’ is quite technical in nature. And it does not reflect the kind of creativity that others, such as Harris (1981), Bakhtin (1981) or Kramsch (1995), recognize as genuine linguistic creativity. For example, the ability to create new meanings and forms, especially in the domain of metaphor. And it is this kind of creativity that might be more relevant to the language learning process.

applied linguistics

Other Lines of Linguistic Research

Grabe (1992) proposes that, in addition to generative research, AL draw upon work in three other lines of linguistic research. Functional and typological theories as seen in the work of Halliday, Chafe, Givon, Comrie and Greenberg. Anthropological linguistics and sociolinguistics, represented in the research of Labov, Hymes, Ochs, Gumperz, Fishman and the Milroys. And research which results in descriptive grammars based on corpus linguistic analyses (corpora). Interestingly, this latter type of research is criticized by Widdowson (2000a: 24) as too narrow in scope. Because its focus is on what is done rather than on what is known. Although it has to be added that Widdowson sees some relevance for corpus linguistics. Since it is at least able to reflect a partial view of how language is deployed in the real world.

What agreement has been achieved seems to point to AL as a field whose scope of interest is the development of solutions to language-based problems in the real world. To realize its goal. It draws on theoretical, methodological and empirical research from a wide array of disciplines, including (but not limited to) linguistics.

One problem with perspective. Is that it is not clear that all of the work that refers to itself as AL can legitimately be seen as solutions to real-world problems. For instance, some of the leading journals in applied linguistics publish articles on; genre studies, discourse analysis and sociolinguistics that are potentially of interest to applied linguists. But in and of themselves not do purport to solve real-world language problems.

Other Programs of Applied Linguistics

The same can be said of the programs of the important international conferences in the field. The argument could be made. That this type of research, while not really applied in nature, is at least relevant to AL. Therefore could be included within its domain. Yet, if the problem-solving focus is to be distinguishing feature of applied linguistics. We might even question whether an area such as second language acquisition research should be legitimately included in applied linguistics.

Some SLA researchers, especially those working within the framework of Universal Grammar. Have in fact claimed that their project is not about solving real-world problems. And it might better be situated within the domain of theoretical linguistics. This argument is not without merit. This sort of research helps us understand the constraints that operate in L1 acquisition also hold forL2. This is not to suggest that SLA research is not relevant to applied linguistics. But it does point to the complexities entailed in deciding whether a particular research program meets the criteria for inclusion within applied linguistics.

Laying the Foundation Of Applied Linguistics

In laying the foundation for linguistics as the science of languages. Saussure proposed that if linguistics was to operate as a legitimate scientific enterprise. It would be necessary to overlook how people actually use and learn language in their life-world. He thus created the illusion of language as an autonomous object, akin to the objects of the physical universe, so it could be studied in accordance with the principles of scientific enquiry.

This viewpoint has dominated much of the research in linguistics to the present day. Kaplan (1980a: 64) believes, however, that despite an assumption that AL research adheres to the principles of scientific investigation. Applied linguists might, on occasion, have to sacrifice these principles to find solutions to language-based human problems. Kaplan (1980a: 63) says that AL is ‘the most humanistic breed of linguists’. Perhaps, then, applied linguistics would be more appropriately situated alongside literary, historical […] rather than as a social, science.

Even though a humanistic applied linguistics manages to bring people back into the picture. It continues to foreground language over people as its proper object of study. Another way to conceptualize applied linguistics as the human science is to think of it as interested in the theoretical, as well as empirical, study of people as linguistic beings.

The Study of People as Linguistic Beings

AL, according to this view, investigates how people come to participate linguistically with other people. In communities of practice and how they mediate their activities within these communities. It also seeks to uncover and understand the sources and consequences of problems that arise when people experience difficulties. It also undertakes to understand how people succeed or fail in their attempts to participate in new communities of practice. And it seeks to develop appropriate means to assist them in their efforts. All of this clearly distinguishes applied linguistics from linguistics proper, which has as its object of study language, not people.

The centrality of language

As a branch of linguistics, applied linguistics retains a primary focus on language. This may seem like an obvious point to make, but as our research agenda in language teaching and learning broadens, it is a point that is sometimes easy to forget. The search for more effective classroom management techniques, and ongoing debates about education policy, for instance, are some of the things that might sometimes overlap with the remit of applied linguistics.

The same applies to emerging scholarship that problematises inequalities inside the classroom and beyond it, or the continuing work investigating psychology of language teachers and learners. Such crossover can enrich both applied linguistics and the adjoining disciplines. That said, work carried out under the banner of applied linguistics must explicitly connect to language, and it must show how its findings and impact are particular to language teaching and learning, as opposed to teaching and learning in general.

The relevance to the real world

This is what distinguishes ‘applied’ from ‘theoretical’ linguistics. Theoretical linguistics concerns itself with an abstract understanding of how language functions; applied linguistics is about taking those insights and finding answers to the ‘so what?’ and ‘now what?’ questions. The number of ‘real-world problems’ (or situations) to which linguistics is being applied has definitely proliferated. It now includes topics such as lexicography (the production of dictionaries), automated translation, human-machine interaction, and speech therapy, among others. All these actions certainly fall under the applied linguistics responsibility, but for my purposes as a language educator, I use a more restricted definition: in the context of language education, applied linguistics is the branch of linguistics that seeks to find implications of linguistics theory for language teaching and learning.

And here we have an overview of AL by Professor Philip Shaw, Stockholm University, Department of English.

Applied Linguistics according to Wikipedia

AL is an interdisciplinary field which identifies, investigates, and offers solutions to language-related real-life problems. Some of the academic fields related to applied linguistics are education, psychology, communication research, anthropology, and sociology.

AL is an interdisciplinary field. Major branches of applied linguistics include bilingualism and multilingualism, conversation analysis, contrastive linguistics, sign linguistics, language assessment, literacies, discourse analysis, language pedagogy, second language acquisition, language planning and policy, interlinguistics, stylistics, language teacher education, pragmatics, forensic linguistics and translation.

The tradition of applied linguistics established itself in part as a response to the narrowing of focus in linguistics with the advent in the late 1950s of generative linguistics, and has always maintained a socially-accountable role, demonstrated by its central interest in language problems.[1]

Although the field of applied linguistics started from Europe and the United States, the field rapidly flourished in the international context.

The Basis of Applied Linguistics according to Wikipedia

AL first concerned itself with principles and practices on the basis of linguistics and it was thought as “linguistics-applied” at least from the outside of the field. Applied Linguistics, in the 1960s, was expanded to include language assessment, language policy, and second language acquisition. As early as the 1970s, applied linguistics became a problem-driven field rather than theoretical linguistics, including the solution of language-related problems in the real world. By the 1990s, applied linguistics had broadened including critical studies and multilingualism. Research in applied linguistics was shifted to “the theoretical and empirical investigation of real world problems in which language is a central issue.”

In the United States, applied linguistics also began narrowly as the application of insights from structural linguistics—first to the teaching of English in schools and subsequently to second and foreign language teaching. Leonard Bloomfield promulgated he linguistics applied approach to language teaching, in which he developed the foundation for the Army Specialized Training Program, and by Charles C. Fries, who established the English Language Institute (ELI) at the University of Michigan in 1941.

AL, in 1946 became a recognized field of studies in the aforementioned university. In 1948, the Research Club at Michigan established Language Learning: A Journal of AL, the first journal to bear the term applied linguistics. In the late 1960s, applied linguistics began to establish its own identity as an interdisciplinary field of linguistics concerned with real-world language issues. The new identity was solidified by the creation of the American Association for Applied Linguistics in 1977.

After reading “Applied Linguistics”, you can check important issues for ESL teachers on the section PDFs. And visit my channel by YouTube.