Applied linguistics: no ‘bookish theoric’
THEORISING PRACTISE
The need for a world-wide expansion in English at the end of the Second World War and the resources found for that expansion permitted the rise of an independent applied linguistics. It was probably fortunate that the ‘primary object’ of teacher education in English as a Foreign Language was dominant for much of that time since it made for the coherent development in applied linguistics as a theorizing discipline. Over the forty or so years of its existence applied linguistics has grown and spread. The question I address is whether that growth must lead to fragmentation and shatter all coherence in the discipline.
There are three possible directions for fragmentation: theory, ideology and practice. The first is towards a powerful theory, as we see in current second-language acquisition (SLA) research, attracted at present by the explanatory power of Universal Grammar. That is the micro view but there is a macro view also, which would draw all applied linguistics towards linguistics, the view that applied linguistics is ‘really’ the application of linguistics.
The second fragmentation is that applied linguistics is taken over by the ideology of one or other political variety, the CDA practiced by Fairclough, or the more radical, if also more nebulous CAL promoted by Pennycook. There are other ideological possibilities which point away from a political or postmodern outcome:
one such alternative would be the linguistics of Harris’s language-in-use project.
Finally, there is the practice emphasis which would shift applied linguistics to a future largely within teacher education. Such an outcome has precedents, not only in its attention to the primary object of language-teacher education but also in the concerns of those applied linguists whose careers have been spent working in applied linguistics within Faculties of Education.
In addition, there is a fourth scenario, the ‘open field of interest in language’ put forward by Rampton and discussed above. Such a proposal could, as we saw, lead to a situation in which language problems would be approached by a diverse group who would lack the common experience, understanding and shared language of applied linguistics. They would be unable to frame the relevant questions and propose ways forward. Rampton’s solution of an open field does not seem attractive. Is there an alternative?
I think there is. Rampton’s analysis of the present state of applied linguistics may make sense but his solution does not. Perfect coherence in applied linguistics is no more to be expected, or, indeed, desired, than in any other academic area. The three sources of fragmentation we have mentioned, the pull towards the application of linguistics, the lure of ideology and the concern for practice, these are all signs of a flourishing and creative and concerned profession. What applied linguists need to do is to encourage these developments, rejoicing in them as signs of vitality, while making sure that the primary emphasis on constant re-engagement with the experience of language in use continues. This requires asking the right questions about institutional language problems and then generalizing to other contexts where similar problems can be shown after analysis to exist. Such an approach, which theorizes practice, will be explanatory and at the same time provide a set of options for action.
