Applied Linguistics: A classroom menace?

[LarryLatham]

It's interesting that you mentioned Chomsky (along with Krashen) as being an applied linguist in an earlier post, Larry - I'm sure you'd agree that Chomsky is more a theoretician, and that he has made no claims as to the applicability of his work to teaching (although he of course must still hold great hopes for the whole enterprise he began)...I'm not sure if Krashen is an applied linguist...what is he, exactly? I guess he has done his share of teaching at least...

Did I say they were applied linguists? If so, then I misspoke. Both are, of course, more theoretical than applied (though Krashen's work, in particular, probably informs applied linguistics to a fair extent).

While I don't consider myself a disciple of either of these gentlemen, I certainly do acknowledge the immense contribution each has made to the field of linguistics in general. Their detractors more than likely have misintrepreted what they have said (an oh so common problem in academic discussion).

Larry Latham

[Duncan Powrie]

You guys seen/read this on your internet travels?

http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej05/f1.html

I recall coming across it a year or so ago, but had forgot about it until just now (I've just been tracking down good reviews I've spotted of learner dictionaries for revel, to post on the "Macmillan English Dictionary hamstrung?" thread); I'd also forgotten what a damn fine read it is - better than anything I could write!

[woodcutter]

Thanks for the article Duncan, nice to see the obscure issue of the actual situation in most classrooms addressed now and then.

The author seems to feel we all need a theoretical justification for what we do. Most of us, I suppose, do what we do because it is common practice, it has gone over well, and the students seem to make progress. If we try and always be aware of what others are doing is this so bad?

Of course, teachers will improve if they study linguistics, if only through giving better explanations. They can also apply their knowledge to their class. Institutionalized applied linguistics, however, seems to amount to putting a buzzword in a foghorn.

[woodcutter]

By the way, I see that an old thread notes that nobody in this forum has much to say concerning applied linguistics. An indication of lack of utility?

[revel]

Good morning all!

What does the student need to know? Will this information I have gleaned from the Applied Linguistics studies I have done both in the library and in the classroom act as a clarifying note or as an obstacle? What are the objectives of the student and the teacher, and how much Applied Linguistics should be applied to help reach them?

I return to guitar study. Just about anyone can pick up the instrument and in a couple of hours strum out a song. A bit more work and chord progressions pop out of the tips of the calloused fingers. Get into music theory and sounds take on a more sophisticated tone. However, really communicating through music needs to go many steps further than simply playing it correctly. Unless the teacher can teach the student how to feel, it is up to the student to feel him/herself and let others understand his/her feelings.

I myself do use Applied Linguistics in the classroom. I sometimes even teach some AL to my students, when I feel it will help them get over a particularly muddy spot in the road. I consider myself an applied linguist, and the key word here is "applied". It's not the material itself, but how it is applied that ought to be the question. Mr Krashen's LAN is interesting, but how, when, why, if ever, should a student be made aware of this little gem of linguistic "understanding"?

peace,
revel.